[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57495-57504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22851]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[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]


National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 55

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
     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

[[Page 57496]]

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. 1613 et seq.

B. What is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil 
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR 
Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 
105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP 
sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and 
threatened releases of hazardous substances, or 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. The EPA has revised the NCP on several 
occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 
(55 FR 8666).
    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also 
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or 
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of 
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into 
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking 
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a 
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise 
address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, 
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or 
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants 
throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP 
(40 CFR Part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, 
as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of 
``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and requires that 
the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to 
guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation 
to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental 
risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or 
contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance, however, as it 
does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific 
property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any 
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of 
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the 
``General Superfund Section'') and one of sites that are owned or 
operated by other federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities 
Section''). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section, 
these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies. 
Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA 
section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most 
response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or 
control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking 
System (``HRS'') score and determining whether the facility is placed 
on the NPL.

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for 
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site 
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, 
which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR Part 300). 
The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential 
of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to 
pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 
(55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in 
response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS 
evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure and 
air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or 
greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
9605(a)(8)(B), each state may designate a single site as its top 
priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision 
of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one 
facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public 
health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state. 
This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 
300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP 
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any 
HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
     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.

[[Page 57497]]

     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.
    The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 
1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund 
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'') 
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with a 
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * 
* *'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), placing 
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' The 
EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the 
releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; 
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of 
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further 
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of 
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any 
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA 
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define 
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, 
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL 
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at 
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as 
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the 
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the 
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site 
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily 
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the 
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the 
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all 
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well 
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, 
or from where that contamination came.
    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.
    EPA regulations provide that the Remedial Investigation (``RI'') 
``is a process undertaken * * * to determine the nature and extent of 
the problem presented by the release'' as more information is developed 
on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an 
interactive fashion with the Feasibility Study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5). 
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or 
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the 
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS 
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the 
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it 
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the 
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies 
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries 
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most 
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release 
with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to 
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party 
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of 
property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any 
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research 
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or 
release.

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

    The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is 
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 
300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with 
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the 
following criteria have been met:
    (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been 
implemented and no further response action is required; or
    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of 
remedial measures is not appropriate.

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are 
cleaned up?

    In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of 
NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). 
Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may 
have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

I. What is the construction completion list (CCL)?

    The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list 
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better 
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 
12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal 
significance.
    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 at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ccl.htm.

J. What is the sitewide ready for anticipated use measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure represents important 
Superfund accomplishments and the

[[Page 57498]]

measure 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 to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/pdf/sitewide_a.pdf.

K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?

    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 at http://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?

    Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites 
in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at the EPA 
Headquarters and in the Regional offices.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
www.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          Jennings, LA...........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0066
 Refining Company.
Leeds Metal.........................  Leeds, ME..............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0647
Holcomb Creosote Co.................  Yadkinville, NC........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0067
Orange Valley Regional Ground Water   West Orange/Orange, NJ.  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0068
 Contamination.
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?

    The Headquarters Docket for this rule contains, for each site, the 
HRS score sheets, the Documentation Record describing the information 
used to compute the score, pertinent information regarding statutory 
requirements or the EPA listing policies that affect the site and a 
list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. For sites 
that received comments during the comment period, the Headquarters 
Docket also contains a Support Document that includes the EPA's 
responses to comments.

C. What documents are available for review at the Regional Dockets?

    The Regional Dockets contain all the information in the 
Headquarters Docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the 
data principally relied upon by the EPA in calculating or evaluating 
the HRS score for the sites located in their Region. These reference 
documents are available only in the Regional Dockets. For sites that 
received comments during the comment period, the Regional Docket also 
contains a Support Document that includes the EPA's responses to 
comments.

D. How do I access the documents?

    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, see 
ADDRESSES section in the beginning portion of this preamble.

E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites?

    You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at 
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/index.htm or 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:

[[Page 57499]]



 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      State                  Site name                 City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL...............  Alabama Plating Company,      Vincent
                    Inc..
AR...............  Cedar Chemical Corporation..  West Helena
FL...............  Fairfax St. Wood Treaters...  Jacksonville
IL...............  Bautsch-Gray Mine...........  Galena
LA...............  EVR-Wood Treating/Evangeline  Jennings
                    Refining Company.
ME...............  Leeds Metal.................  Leeds
NC...............  Holcomb Creosote Co.........  Yadkinville
NJ...............  Orange Valley Regional        West Orange/Orange
                    Ground Water Contamination.
OH...............  Peters Cartridge Factory....  Kings Mills
OH...............  West Troy Contaminated        Troy
                    Aquifer.
TX...............  Circle Court Ground Water     Willow Park
                    Plume.
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 rationale

[[Page 57500]]

in 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 at htpp://
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 the 
Federal Register. The detailed rationale and additional information the 
commenter seeks, however, is in the HRS documentation record itself. 
The EPA believes that the Federal Register notice 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 
the Federal Register. The HRS codifies or implements the criteria the 
EPA considers pursuant to CERCLA Sec.  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) (citing 
Home 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.'' See id. 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 at http://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 of

[[Page 57501]]

the 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.
2. Is this Final Rule subject to Executive Order 12866 review?
    No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations 
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory 
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA 
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined 
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB 
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
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.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this Final Rule?
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 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.
    Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources expended 
by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or provide 
information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed 
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et 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.
2. How has the EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations 
on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not 
establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, 
and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, 
small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of 
hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under 
CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site 
is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this rule does not 
impose any requirements on any small entities. For the foregoing 
reasons, I certify that this 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)?
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by state, local and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year. Before the EPA promulgates a rule 
where a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the 
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of the EPA regulatory proposals with significant federal 
intergovernmental mandates and informing, educating and advising small 
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
2. Does UMRA apply to this Final Rule?
    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,

[[Page 57502]]

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.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of 
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As is mentioned 
above, site listing does not impose any costs and would not require any 
action of a small government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this Final Rule?
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship 
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it does not contain any 
requirements applicable to states or other levels of government. Thus, 
the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to this final 
rule.
    The EPA believes, however, that this final rule may be of 
significant interest to state governments. In the spirit of Executive 
Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote 
communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA 
therefore consulted with state officials and/or representatives of 
state governments early in the process of developing the rule to permit 
them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. All 
sites included in this final rule were referred to the EPA by states 
for listing. For all sites in this rule, the EPA received letters of 
support either from the governor or a state official who was delegated 
the authority by the governor to speak on their behalf regarding NPL 
listing decisions.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that 
have tribal implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to 
include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or 
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government 
and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this Final Rule?
    This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Listing a site 
on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to 
take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 
action meets both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental 
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this Final Rule?
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not 
an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, 
and because the agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this section present 
a disproportionate risk to children.

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.
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this Final Rule?
    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. Further, 
the agency has concluded that this final rule is not likely to have any 
adverse energy impacts because adding a site to the NPL does not 
require an entity to conduct any action that would require energy use, 
let alone that which would significantly affect energy supply, 
distribution or usage. Thus, Executive Order 13211 does not apply to 
this action.

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.
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act apply to 
this Final Rule?
    No. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, the EPA

[[Page 57503]]

did 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?
    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this Final Rule?
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment. As this rule does not impose any enforceable duty upon 
state, tribal or local governments, this rule will neither increase nor 
decrease environmental protection.

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. 801 et 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 the Federal Register. A ``major rule'' 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
2. Could the effective date of this Final Rule change?
    Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of 
CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation.
    The EPA has submitted a report under the CRA for this rule. The 
rule will take effect, as provided by law, within 30 days of 
publication of this document, since it is not a major rule. NPL listing 
is not a major rule because, by itself, imposes no monetary costs on 
any person. It establishes no enforceable duties, does not establish 
that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action, nor does it 
require any action by any party or determine liability for site 
response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from 
site-by-site decisions about what actions to take, not directly from 
the act of listing itself. Section 801(a)(3) provides for a delay in 
the effective date of major rules after this report is submitted.
3. What could cause a change in the effective date of this Rule?
    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or continue 
in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint 
resolution of disapproval, described under section 802.
    Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA 
section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations 
promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. 
Ct. 2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington v. 
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 the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, 
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water 
supply.

    Dated: September 10, 2012.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

    40 CFR Part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

0
2. Amend Appendix B of Part 300:
0
a. In Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 by:
0
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;

0
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;

0
3. Removing the footnote ``***P = Sites with deletions(s)''; and

0
4. Removing ``C'' from the Notes\(a)\ column wherever it appears (174 
times).
0
b. In Tables 1 and 2 by removing the footnote ``C=Sites on construction 
completion list.''
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                   Table 1--General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     State             Site name             City/county     Notes \(a)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
AL............  Alabama Plating          Vincent...........
                 Company, Inc..
 
                              * * * * * * *
AR............  Cedar Chemical           West Helena.......            S
                 Corporation.

[[Page 57504]]

 
 
                              * * * * * * *
FL............  Fairfax St. Wood         Jacksonville......
                 Treaters.
 
                              * * * * * * *
IL............  Bautsch-Gray Mine......  Galena............
 
                              * * * * * * *
LA............  EVR-Wood Treating/       Jennings..........
                 Evangeline Refining
                 Company.
 
                              * * * * * * *
ME............  Leeds Metal............  Leeds.............
 
                              * * * * * * *
NC............  Holcomb Creosote Co....  Yadkinville.......
 
                              * * * * * * *
NJ............  Orange Valley Regional   West Orange/Orange
                 Ground Water
                 Contamination.
 
                              * * * * * * *
OH............  Peters Cartridge         Kings Mills.......
                 Factory.
 
                              * * * * * * *
OH............  West Troy Contaminated   Troy..............
                 Aquifer.
 
                              * * * * * * *
TX............  Circle Court Ground      Willow Park.......
                 Water Plume.
 
                              * * * * * * *
TX............  US Oil Recovery........  Pasadena..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic
  Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be <=
  28.50).
S = State top priority (included among the 100 top priority sites
  regardless of score).
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-22851 Filed 9-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P