Source: http://thefederalregister.com/2012/09/18/2012-22851.html
Timestamp: 2018-09-19 20:52:59
Document Index: 686257491

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 105', 'art 300', 'art 300', 'art 9', 'ART 300', 'art 300', 'art 300', 'art 300', 'art 300']

Federal Register | National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 55
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0002, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0647, 0653, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0146, 0147, 0062, 0063, 0065, 0066, 0067, 0068, 0070 and 0071; FRL-9722-6]
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA" or "the Act"), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP") include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List ("NPL") constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency ("the EPA" or "the agency") in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule adds 12 sites to the General Superfund Section of the NPL.
DATES: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP is October 18, 2012.
ADDRESSES: * Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.; EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-0276.
The contact information for the relevant Regional Dockets is as follows:
* Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100; Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1417.
* Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
* Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8862.
* Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-4465.
* Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, email:jeng.terry@epa.gov,Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA? B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)? D. How are sites listed on the NPL? E. What happens to sites on the NPL? F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites? G. How are sites removed from the NPL? H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up? I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? J. What is the sitewide ready for anticipated use measure? K. What is State/Tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing? II. Availability of Information to the Public A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule? B. What documents are available for review at the headquarters docket? C. What documents are available for review at the regional dockets? D. How do I access the documents? E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites? III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received? C. Removal of Construction Completion List Column Note and Footnote Description D. Correction of Partial Deletion Notation in Table 1 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 1. What is Executive Order 12866? 2. Is this final rule subject to Executive Order 12866 review? B. Paperwork Reduction Act 1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act? 2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this final rule? C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? 2. How has the EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act? D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)? 2. Does UMRA apply to this final rule? E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 1. What is Executive Order 13132? 2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this final rule? F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 1. What is Executive Order 13175? 2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this final rule? G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks 1. What is Executive Order 13045? 2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this final rule? H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Usage 1. What Is Executive Order 13211? 2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this final rule? I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? 2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act apply to this final rule? J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations 1. What Is Executive Order 12898? 2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this final rule? K. Congressional Review Act 1. Has the EPA submitted this rule to Congress and the Government Accountability Office? 2. Could the effective date of this final rule change? 3. What could cause a change in the effective date of this rule? I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613et seq.
• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
• The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.
• The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.
In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g.,the “Jones Co. plant site”) in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not limited to that property (e.g.,it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property (e.g.,where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the “site”). The “site” is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For example, the name “Jones Co. plant site,” does not imply that the Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.
Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (e.g.,institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the CCL, see the EPA's Internet site athttp://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ccl.htm.
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure represents important Superfund accomplishments and themeasure reflects the high priority the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go tohttp://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/sitewide_a.pdf.
In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following Web site:http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/policy/govlet.pdf.The EPA is improving the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA will be using the web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available.
A model letter and correspondence from this point forward between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, will be added to the EPA's Web site athttp://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/nplstcor.htm.
II. Availability of Information to the Public A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule?
An electronic version of the public docket is available throughwww.regulations.gov(see table below for Docket Identification numbers). Although not all Docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available Docket materials through the Docket facilities identified below in section II D.
Docket Identification Numbers by Site Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. Alabama Plating Company, Inc. Vincent, AL EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0002 Cedar Chemical Corporation West Helena, AR EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0062 Fairfax St. Wood Treaters Jacksonville, FL EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0063 Bautsch-Gray Mine Galena, IL EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0065 EVR-Wood Treating/Evangeline Refining Company Jennings, LA EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0066 Leeds Metal Leeds, ME EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0647 Holcomb Creosote Co Yadkinville, NC EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0067 Orange Valley Regional Ground Water Contamination West Orange/Orange, NJ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0068 Peters Cartridge Factory Kings Mills, OH EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010 West Troy Contaminated Aquifer Troy, OH EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0070 Circle Court Ground Water Plume Willow Park, TX EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0071 US Oil Recovery Pasadena, TX EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0653 B. What documents are available for review at the Headquarters Docket?
You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters Docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for hours. For addresses for the Headquarters and Regional Dockets, seeADDRESSESsection in the beginning portion of this preamble.
You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet athttp://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/index.htmor by contacting the Superfund Docket (see contact information in the beginning portion of this notice).
III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL
This final rule adds the following 12 sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund Section. All of the sites included in this final rulemaking are being added to the NPL based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above with the exception of Cedar Chemical Corporation, which has been designated as the state's one-time top priority site. The sites are presented in the table below:
State Site name City/county AL Alabama Plating Company, Inc. Vincent AR Cedar Chemical Corporation West Helena FL Fairfax St. Wood Treaters Jacksonville IL Bautsch-Gray Mine Galena LA EVR-Wood Treating/Evangeline Refining Company Jennings ME Leeds Metal Leeds NC Holcomb Creosote Co Yadkinville NJ Orange Valley Regional Ground Water Contamination West Orange/Orange OH Peters Cartridge Factory Kings Mills OH West Troy Contaminated Aquifer Troy TX Circle Court Ground Water Plume Willow Park TX US Oil Recovery Pasadena B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?
The EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule and responded to all relevant comments. This rule adds 12 sites to the NPL.
The EPA received two comments relating to all sites proposed for NPL addition in the March 2012 NPL proposed rule (77 FR 15344, March 15, 2012). One commenter approved of listing sites on the NPL but urged the EPA to develop a more reasoned and significant HRS score threshold for listing sites (see docket number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0071-0005). The commenter questioned whether the EPA can protect human health and the environment without a “reasoned threshold for remediation” and whether 28.50 is the “exact point where risk becomes too great for the government to allow the contamination to continue.” The commenter expressed that she was unable to locate any resource indicating the rationale of the 28.50 threshold, then cited in part the EPA's rationale from the 1990 revisions to the HRS at 55 FR 51569. The commenter questioned whether the rationale is still valid given that 220 sites currently on the Superfund list (16.9% of the total listed sites) fall within 5 points of the 28.50 cutoff.
In response, the commenter is incorrect that the 28.50 cutoff score is intended as a “reasoned threshold for remediation” and is incorrect in stating that the 28.50 cutoff score is intended as “the exact point where risk becomes too great to allow contamination to continue.” It is neither. The EPA's rationale for retaining the 28.50 cutoff score is addressed in the preamble to the 1990 revisions to the HRS (55 FR 51569, December 14, 1990). There, after requesting public comments on the issue, the Agency stated:
EPA believes that the cutoff score has been, and should continue to be, a mechanism that allows it to make objective decisions on national priorities. Because the HRS is intended to be a screening system, the Agency has never attached significance to the cutoff score as an indicator of a specific level of risk from a site, nor has the Agency intended the cutoff to reflect a point below which no risk was present. The score of 28.50 is not meant to imply that risky and non-risky sites can be precisely distinguished. Nevertheless, the cutoff score has been a useful screening tool that has allowed the Agency to set priorities and to move forward with studying and, where appropriate, cleaning up hazardous waste sites. The vast majority of sites scoring above 28.50 in the past have been shown to present risks. EPA believes that a cutoff score of 28.50 will continue to serve this crucial function.
An HRS evaluation is not a risk assessment and is not a decision to remediate a specific site. Remediation decisions are made later in the Superfund process after additional investigation. The HRS is intended to be a “rough list” of prioritized hazardous sites; a “first step in a process—nothing more, nothing less”Eagle Picher Indus.v.EPA,759 F.2d 922, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Eagle Picher II). The EPA would like to investigate each possible site completely and thoroughly prior to evaluating them for proposal for NPL, but it must reconcile the need for certainty before action with the need for inexpensive, expeditious procedures to identify potentially hazardous sites. The courts have found the EPA's approach to solving this conundrum to be “reasonable and fully in accord with Congressional intent”Eagle Picher Industries, Inc.v.EPA,(759 F.2d 905 (D.C. Cir. 1985) Eagle Picher I). When scoring sites during an HRS evaluation, the EPA does not score multiple pathways when scoring an additional pathway will not affect the listing decision, even though it might add to a site score. Therefore, the HRS score represents a threshold score—sites that score within 5 points could actually score significantly higher if additional pathways were investigated; thus, the commenter's basis for claiming that the rationale is no longer valid is flawed.
This rulemaking adds specific sites to the NPL and does not propose to change the process for determining the eligibility of sites for the NPL. This comment, which supports the placement of the sites to the NPL, results in no change to the HRS scores of the sites at issue and no change in the decision to place them on the NPL.
The second commenter stated that the EPA should have provided additional information as to why these sites were being listed, and that this lack of information was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) (see docket number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0071-0006). In particular, the commenter questions the adequacy of the Narrative Summary for each proposed site. The commenter states that the Narrative Summaries should provide more discussion of the rationale and purpose of listing a site; more discussion of alternatives to listing; and more opportunity for notice and comment as required by the APA. The commenter requests re-proposal of the sites in accordance with their request for additional information.
In response, the Agency notes that the commenter submitted similar comments to a NPL rulemaking in 2008 (see document number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0081-0005). The Agency reaffirms its response to those comments in 2008 and continues to hold that its process for adding sites to the NPL complies with the APA and CERCLA. As stated in 2008, for prospective sites under consideration for listing on the NPL, the EPA follows NCP procedures by conducting a preliminary assessment (PA) report of the site. Depending on the results, that may be followed up by a site inspection report (SI), which involves gathering more information about the site by contacting the state and interested parties on and around the site. When a site is proposed to the NPL, the EPA provides its detailed rationalein documents (i.e.,the HRS documentation record and supporting materials) publicly available at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, in the Regional offices, and by electronic access athtpp://www.regulations.gov.If the site is affected by any particular statutory requirements or the EPA listing policies, such requirements or policies are discussed and included in the docket materials for each site, which are made available for public review and comment. Commenters have the opportunity to raise any comments they may have on the proposed listing, supporting documentation, and rationale (typically over a 60-day comment period). In kind, the EPA responds to such comments in writing before making a final decision to place a site on the NPL.
Section 553 of the APA authorizes “informal” rulemaking, which encourages and relies on the participation of the public, including potentially responsible parties. The process outlined in the paragraph above clearly complies with informal rulemaking under the APA. The commenter mistakenly argues that the EPA should put the basis or rationale for its listing decision in the Narrative Summary in theFederal Register. The detailed rationale and additional information the commenter seeks, however, is in the HRS documentation record itself. The EPA believes that theFederal Registernotice and the documentation record give the notice required by the APA. The commenter does not explain why the APA requires the Narrative Summary to be published in theFederal Register. The HRS codifies or implements the criteria the EPA considers pursuant to CERCLA § 105(a)(8)(A) when placing a site on the NPL. As discussed above, courts have found the EPA's approach reasonable and consistent with congressional intent.
Finally, while the commenter has made general assertions that the information presented at proposal for the sites was inadequate, the commenter has not explained why the information provided was not adequate to list the sites or any specific site. The commenter requests re-proposal of the sites but fails to specify or explain the inadequacies of the HRS documentation record of each site, and fails to provide any information the Agency should consider. As the commenter itself states: “Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking Must Be a Dialogue.” Courts, however, have held that the “dialogue between administrative agencies and the public is a two-way street.”Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc.v.Thomas,849 F.2d 1516, 1520 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citingHome Box Office, Inc.v.FCC,567 F.2d 9 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). The commenter “cannot merely state that a particular mistake was made,” rather it must show “why the mistake was of possible significance in the result the agency reaches.” Seeid.at 1519. In this case, the commenter has not explained what other information the Agency needs to consider or why the information the Agency has considered is not sufficient to place the sites on the NPL.
This rulemaking adds specific sites to the NPL and does not propose to change the process for determining the eligibility of sites for the NPL. This comment results in no change to the HRS scores of the sites presented and no change in the decision to place them on the NPL.
Other than these two general comments, the EPA received no additional comments on seven sites included in the March 2012 proposal and so the EPA is including them in this final rule. Those sites are Fairfax St. Wood Treaters (Jacksonville, FL), Holcomb Creosote Co (Yadkinville, NC), Bautsch-Gray Mine (Galena, IL), West Troy Contaminated Aquifer (Troy, OH), Cedar Chemical Corporation (West Helena, AR), EVR-Wood Treating/Evangeline Refining Company (Jennings, LA) and Circle Court Ground Water Plume (Willow Park, TX).
For the Orange Valley Regional Ground Water Contamination site (West Orange/Orange, NJ), the EPA also received a comment supporting listing of the site, and providing additional sampling data which the commenter stated demonstrated an even greater risk at the site than indicated by the proposed score. In response, the EPA is adding the site to the NPL, as the commenter advocates, and will consider the data provided as it performs the RI/FS to more fully assess the contamination and develop cleanup options, if deemed necessary.
Four sites in this rule received site-specific comments that are addressed in response to comments support documents placed in the docket and accompanying the release of this rule. These four sites are Leeds Metal (Leeds, ME), Alabama Plating Company, Inc. (Vincent, AL), Peters Cartridge Factory (Kings Mills, OH) and US Oil Recovery (Pasadena, TX).
C. Removal of Construction Completion List Column Note and Footnote Description
The EPA received no comments on its March 15, 2012 proposal to remove the Construction Completion List column note and footnote description (77 FR 15344, Docket # EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0146). This final rule amends the notes column and footnote description of Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 300 to remove the note that references “sites on the construction completion list.” The EPA developed the Construction Completion List (CCL) (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993) “to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities.” Notes were added to Table 1 (General Superfund Section) and Table 2 (Federal Facilities Section) of the NPL to identify those sites on the CCL. With today's easy public accessibility to the Internet and the availability of the most current data on the EPA's Web site, the EPA is removing the construction completion list note. For information on the construction completion list, please visit the EPA's Web site athttp://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ccl.htm.
D. Correction of Partial Deletion Notation in Table 1
The EPA received no comments on its March 15, 2012 proposal to correct the partial deletion notation in Table 1 (77 FR 15344, Docket # EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0147). Therefore, this final rule corrects an error in the column note symbol used to designate sites with partial deletions in Appendix B to CFR Part 300. The correct column note symbol for a site with a partial deletion is “P”. The Mouat Industries site in Montana has its partial deletion incorrectly designated by a column note symbol of “* * *P”. In addition, this incorrect symbol was erroneously added to the footnote descriptions at the end of Table 1 as “* * *P = Sites with deletion(s)”. The EPA is correcting the column note for the Mouat Industries site by changing it to “P” and is removing the erroneous footnote description.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review 1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the agency must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector ofthe economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act 1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.,an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501et seq.the EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601et seq.,as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e.,small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
This final rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take,not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 1. What is Executive Order 13132?
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments 1. What is Executive Order 13175?
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks 1. What is Executive Order 13045?
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Usage 1. What is Executive Order 13211?
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), requires federal agencies to prepare a “Statement of Energy Effects” when undertaking certain regulatory actions. A Statement of Energy Effects describes the adverse effects of a “significant energy action” on energy supply, distribution and use, reasonable alternatives to the action and the expected effects of the alternatives on energy supply, distribution and use.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
No. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPAdid not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations 1. What is Executive Order 12898?
K. Congressional Review Act 1. Has the EPA submitted this rule to Congress and the Government Accountability Office?
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801et seq.,as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA has submitted a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in theFederal Register. A “major rule” cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in theFederal Register. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. AlthoughINSv.Chadha,462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983), andBd. of Regents of the University of Washingtonv.EPA,86 F.3d 1214,1222 (DC Cir. 1996), cast the validity of the legislative veto into question, the EPA has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the effective date of this regulation into question, the EPA will publish a document of clarification in theFederal Register.
Dated: September 10, 2012. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
PART 300—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority:
2. Amend Appendix B of Part 300: a. In Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 by: 1. Adding entries for Alabama Plating Company, Inc., Cedar Chemical Corporation, Fairfax St. Wood Treaters, Bautsch-Gray Mine, EVR-Wood Treating/Evangeline Refining Company, Leeds Metal, Holcomb Creosote Co, Orange Valley Regional Ground Water Contamination, Peters Cartridge Factory, West Troy Contaminated Aquifer, Circle Court Ground Water Plume and US Oil Recovery in alphabetical order by state; 2. Removing the column note symbol “***P” in the Notes(a)column for the entry for the Mouat Industries site (MT) and adding a “P” symbol in its place; 3. Removing the footnote “***P = Sites with deletions(s)”; and 4. Removing “C” from the Notes(a)column wherever it appears (174 times). b. In Tables 1 and 2 by removing the footnote “C=Sites on construction completion list.”
Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List Table 1—General Superfund Section State Site name City/county Notes(a) ******* AL Alabama Plating Company, Inc. Vincent *******