[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57495-57504]
[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:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> 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. 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.

     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

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:

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

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

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,

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

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.

                              * * * * * * *
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


      MEMORANDUM

      To: 		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0199

      From:		U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation

      Date:		August 2015

Subject:	Allowance Allocation Proposed Rule Technical Support Document (TSD)

This memorandum provides information to support the EPA's approach to distribute CO2 allowances in the proposed Clean Power Plan emission guidelines (EGs) mass-based federal plan.  As detailed in section V.D of the preamble to the proposed federal plan, the EPA would distribute an amount of CO2 allowances in each state, for each year in each compliance period, equal to annual emission totals that are consistent with the statewide mass-based emissions goals promulgated in the EGs. The EPA would base the distribution of allowances to affected electric generating units (EGUs) on each unit's share of state-level historical generation. The EPA would also create three set-asides of allowances: (1) an early action set-aside; (2) a set-aside for output-based allocation to affected EGUs that are natural gas combined cycle (NGCC); and (3) a set-aside for renewable energy projects. Excepting the allowances distributed from those set-asides, the EPA would distribute allowances in each state to affected EGUs using the historical-generation based approach.
This memorandum provides additional explanation for the historical-generation based allocation approach, the early action set-aside, and the set-aside for output-based allocation. A separate technical support document (TSD), titled "Renewable Energy Set-Aside Technical Support Document (TSD)," details the renewable energy (RE) set-aside.
The preamble to the proposed federal plan requests comment on allocating a portion of allowances to load-serving entities (LSEs) but does not propose to allocate to LSEs. States may also have an interest in an allocation to LSEs under a state mass-based plan; this memorandum provides additional information on allocating to LSEs.
The memorandum is organized as follows:
 Historical-Generation Based Allocations to EGUs
 Clean Energy Incentive Pool (CEIP) Early Action Set-Aside
 Output-Based Allocation (OBA) Set-Aside
 Allocations to Load-Serving Entities
 References
This memorandum includes the following Appendices (attached Excel Workbooks):
 Appendix A: Calculated Historical-Generation Based Allocations and Underlying Data
 Appendix B: Clean Energy Investment Pool Early Action Set-Aside Size Calculation
 Appendix C: Output-based Allocation Set-Aside Size Calculation

1.0   HISTORICAL GENERATION-BASED ALLOCATIONS TO EGUS
Section V.D.1 of the preamble to the federal plan details the proposed approach to allocate allowances to affected EGUs based on historical generation data. This TSD provides additional information in support of the proposed approach. With the exception of allowances distributed from set-asides, the EPA would distribute all allowances in each state to affected EGUs based on each unit's share of state-level historical generation.
The EPA calculated proposed unit-level allocations using average annual net generation over the period 2010 through 2012 for all units that are identified as likely affected units in the 2012 adjusted baseline data from the EGs. The EPA included generation from, and calculated allocations to, all such units including units that may cease operations prior to the start of the program (i.e., prior to the first compliance period). For units that commenced operation in 2010 or 2011, the EPA excluded data from that year from the calculations. For units that were under construction and commenced operation during or after 2012, the EPA estimated 2012 net generation based on the unit's net summer capacity, assuming a 55 percent capacity factor for combined cycle gas units, a 60 percent capacity factor for steam units, and 8784 hours per year. This wass the same approach taken to estimate 2012 generation for under-construction units in the Clean Power Plan EGs (see CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for the CPP Final Rule).
The units in the 2012 EGs baseline do not match one-for-one with the EGUs to which the EPA would allocate allowances. This is because the units in the 2012 EGs baseline are at the generator level while affected EGUs that would be subject to the federal plan are boiler-level. The EPA proposes to allocate allowances to affected EGUs at the boiler level.
The EPA first determined allocations at the generator level using 2010 through 2012 Energy Information Administration (EIA) net-generation data. Then, the EPA translated the resulting generator-level allocations to the boiler level by matching generators to boilers. The EPA matched generators to boilers using an approach similar to the matching approach that is discussed in the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation Technical Support Document for the CPP Final Rule. For combined cycle units, the allocations were summed across all generators within a plant and then distributed to the units in the plant, based on the proportion of heat input from the EIA-923 Boiler file. For all other units: (1) if there was a one-to-one boiler-to-generator relationship, the allocation was matched directly with the boiler; (2) if multiple generators were associated with one boiler, then the allocations were summed across generators and matched to the boiler; (3) if multiple boilers were matched to multiple generators, then the generator-level allocations were summed and distributed to the boilers, based on the proportion of heat input from the EIA-923 Boiler file. If heat input data was unavailable, then the allocation was distributed to all boilers equally. The resulting boiler-level allocations are shown in Appendix A to this TSD, in the worksheet labelled "Proposed FP Allocations"  -  these are the proposed EGU allocations for the mass-based federal plan. The EPA rounded each EGU's allocations to the nearest ton.
The 2010 through 2012 generator-level data that the EPA used to determine generator-level allocations before translating to boiler-level allocations, are provided in Appendix A, in the worksheet labelled "Underlying Generator-Level Data." The worksheet shows the calculated generator-level allocations, which are a step before translating to boiler-level allocations.
As detailed in section V.D.1 in the proposal, the EPA calculated allocations for all EGUs in the 2012 adjusted baseline from the EGs, regardless of whether any unit in that baseline may retire prior to the start of the first compliance period. The proposed allocations for all such EGUs (i.e., all EGUs in the 2012 adjusted baseline) are provided in Appendix A to this TSD in the worksheet labelled "Proposed FP Allocations"  -  these are the proposed allocations for the federal plan.
While proposing to allocate allowances to all EGUs in the 2012 adjusted baseline, the proposal also requests comment on the EPA's treatment of allocations to units included in the 2012 data set that cease operations before the start of the first compliance period. In section V.D.5 of the preamble to the proposed federal plan, the EPA proposes that if an affected EGU does not operate for 2 full consecutive calendar years, then starting with the next compliance period for which allowances have not yet been recorded, the allowances that would otherwise have been distributed to the unit would be allocated to the RE set-aside for the state in which the unit that ceased operations is located. As discussed in the preamble, the EPA proposes to record allowances by June 1, 2021 for the first compliance period (2022 through 2024). If the approach detailed in section V.D.5 is applied to a unit that ceases operations before the start of the program, then a unit that ceases operations by the end of 2018 (i.e., doesn't operate in calendar years 2019 or 2020) would not receive allocations. A unit that ceases operations in 2019 or 2020 would receive allocations for the first compliance period.
Another approach for addressing units included in the 2012 data set that cease operations before the start of the first compliance period is to not allocate allowances to any unit that has an effective retirement date, or otherwise ceases operations, prior to January 1, 2021 (this date is before June 1, 2021, the proposed date by which the EPA would record allowances for the first compliance period). In this alternative approach, a unit submitting a retired unit exemption form with an effective retirement date of January 1, 2021 or earlier would not receive allocations for the proposed federal plan, and those allowances could instead be distributed to the RE set-aside, the output-based set-aside, or remaining affected EGUs in the state. In effect, this later cut-off date would reduce the amount of allowances being allocated to units that have no need of them for compliance purposes.
The proposal also requests comment on an alternative of continuing allocations to units that retire, instead of ceasing allocations to the retired units starting with the next compliance period for which allowances have not yet been recorded for the unit. Another approach would be to continue allocations to such units for a longer period, e.g., for two or three compliance periods or, for example, for ten years. The EPA urges such commenters to include suggested rationales for such an approach.
The EPA anticipates that it would know if a unit does not operate for two full consecutive calendar years, or on or after January 1, 2021, based on information that the unit owner or operator reports to EPA in accordance with 40 CFR part 75 (i.e., submission of a long term cold storage notification under 40 CFR 75.61 (a)(7) or quarterly emission data reports under 40 CFR 75.64 with zero operating time) and/or if a unit submits a retired unit exemption form. A retired unit exemption form is required for a unit to become exempt upon retirement from the Acid Rain Program (ARP), Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The EPA anticipates expanding the use of the retired unit exemption form to include the proposed federal plan. In order to ensure that it has accurate information regarding units' operating status prior to the start of the compliance periods, the EPA is considering requiring a unit that retires before January 1, 2021 to submit by that date a retired unit exemption form.
Recognizing the distinction between units that permanently retire versus those that simply cease operating for an extended period of time, the proposal also requests comment on the treatment of allocations to units in long term cold storage.  In the proposed approach, a unit in long term cold storage for two full consecutive calendar years would, starting with the next compliance period for which allowances had not yet been recorded, permanently cease receiving allocations.
The EPA proposes that the allowances for the proposed set-asides would be deducted from the total budget for a state prior to the historical generation-based allocation. Allowances remaining in under-subscribed set-asides would be recycled back into the historical-generation allocation for distribution to the affected EGUs. Table 1 summarizes the set-asides that the EPA proposes to apply in each compliance period. Sections 2 and 3 in this TSD provide further information on the proposed Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) early action set-aside and output-based allocation set-aside (OBA), respectively. Further information on the proposed renewable energy (RE) set-aside is provided in a separate TSD (see Renewable Energy Set-Aside TSD).
                       Table 1  -  Allowance Set-Asides
                                Interim period
                                 Final period
                       1[st] Compliance Period
2022-2024
                       2[nd] Compliance Period
2025-2027
                       3[rd] Compliance Period
2028-2029
                           2030-2031 and thereafter
                                   CEIP + RE
                                   OBA + RE
                                   OBA + RE
                                   OBA + RE

The sizes of the proposed CEIP and OBA set-asides are not based on fixed percentages and vary by state (the proposed RE set-aside is 5 percent in every state). Because the percentage of total allowances that the EPA would distribute to the set-asides varies by state, the percentage of allowances that the EPA would allocate to affected EGUs using the historical-generation approach also varies by state. On a nationwide basis, the EPA would allocate 90 percent of total allowances to affected EGUs for the first compliance period, based on the historical-generation approach, and 89 percent for each subsequent compliance period.

2.0   CLEAN ENERGY INCENTIVE POOL EARLY ACTION SET-ASIDE
Section V.D.4 in the federal plan details the proposed approach to calculate the size of the Clean Energy Incentive Pool (CEIP) early action set-aside in each state. As discussed in that section, the EPA would determine the size of the early action set-aside in each state by distributing 300 million CO2 allowances among all the states based on each state's relative share of the total reductions from the 2012 adjusted baseline mass emissions to the 2030 statewide mass goals. The EPA would set aside 100 million allowances from the total available in each year of the first three-year compliance period to make a total of 300 million allowances. By setting the size of the proposed federal plan CEIP set-asides nationwide at 300 million allowances, the EPA would be allowing those states subject to a federal plan to be able to potentially access the full amount of their state's pro rata share of the 300 million-allowance federal CEIP "match." (The total size of the EPA match was set in the EGs.)
To calculate the set-asides in this proposed approach, the EPA compared each state's 2012 adjusted baseline CO2 to its 2030 statewide mass goal. The EPA used the 2012 adjusted baseline CO2 mass emissions from the state-level data in Appendix 3 of the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for the CPP Final Rule. The EPA summed each state's adjusted baseline coal, NGCC, and oil/gas (OG) steam emissions from Appendix 3 to arrive at state total adjusted baseline CO2 emissions. The resulting state total CO2 emissions are shown in Appendix B to this TSD, in the workbook titled "CEIP Early-Action Set-Asides." The workbook also shows the calculation steps that the EPA took to determine the size of the proposed early action set-asides for each state.
For all but four states, the 2030 mass goal is lower than the adjusted baseline. For the four states where the 2030 mass goal is higher than the adjusted baseline, the EPA calculated set-asides equal to 1 percent of the state's 2030 mass goal. The EPA subtracted the sum of the set-asides for those four states (110,968 tons) from the total nationwide allowances available for each year of the set-aside (100 million tons), which results in 99,889,032 tons to be distributed among the remaining 46 states (for which the EPA established goals in the EGs) for each year of the set-aside.
The EPA then distributed the 99,889,032 tons among the 46 states in proportion to each state's relative share of the total reduction from the 2012 adjusted baseline to the 2030 statewide mass goals. The calculations and resulting set-asides are shown in the CEIP Early-Action Set-Asides workbook in Appendix B to this TSD. The proposed early action set-asides for each state are in Table 10 in section V.D.4 in the preamble to the proposed federal plan. The early action set-asides in Table 10 sum to 100 million tons per year nationwide from 2022 through 2024, which would result in a total of 300 million allowances if all of these set-asides were to be implemented.

3.0   OUTPUT-BASED ALLOCATION SET-ASIDE
As noted in section V.D.3 of the preamble to the proposed federal plan, the EPA is proposing a set-aside approach referred to as output-based allocation (OBA), which allocates a portion of allowances to existing NGCC units as a means of mitigating leakage.
Key parameters to be identified under the OBA approach include which affected EGUs receive the allocation, the timing of the set-aside's allocation procedure, the allocation rate(s), and the size of the set-aside. As described in the preamble and summarized here, the EPA proposes that existing NGCC units are eligible for the set-aside. The allocation rate is 1,030 lbs/MWh-net, which is the 111(b) standard for new NGCC units. Eligible units would receive allowances from the set-aside if their average capacity factor is above 50 percent. Beginning with the second compliance period, a portion of the total allowances within each mass-based federal plan state would be allocated to eligible units, based, in part, on their level of electricity generation in the previous compliance period. The amount of OBA set-aside allowances that an affected EGU would receive is based on its net generation above its 50 percent capacity factor in the preceding compliance period, multiplied by the allocation rate. The size of the set-aside is determined by assuming that it would incentivize all existing NGCC in the state to increase their utilization to a 60 percent capacity factor. That is, the size of the set aside in a state is calculated as the allocation rate, multiplied by 10 percent of the net generation (60 percent capacity factor minus 50 percent capacity factor) that may be achieved by all existing NGCC units in that state.
The following sections provide additional information in support of the proposed approach and identify other considerations.
The data that the EPA used to calculate the size of the proposed OBA set-aside in each state are in Appendix C, in the workbook titled "OBA Set-Asides." In that workbook, the tab labelled "State-level data" contains the baseline state-level NGCC net summer capacity data that the EPA used to calculate the size of the OBA set-aside for each state. This data is taken from Appendix 3 of the CO2 Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation TSD for the CPP Final Rule. In the OBA Set-Asides workbook, the calculations are shown in the tab labelled "OBA Set-Aside Calculation." As shown in this worksheet, the EPA calculated each state's OBA set-aside, in tons, as:
  Baseline NGCC capacity x 10% x 8,760 hours x 1,030 lb/MWh-net x 1/2,000
In the above equation:
 Baseline NGCC capacity is the adjusted 2012 baseline NGCC capacity,
 10% is the difference between a capacity factor of 50% and capacity factor of 60%,
 8,760 is the number of hours in a year,
 1,030 lb/MWh-net is the 111(b) standard for new NGCC units, and
 1/2000 is used to convert pounds (lbs) to tons
The EPA would place the amount of allowances that result from the above calculation from each year's allocation into that state's OBA set-aside.
Eligible Sources
As discussed in the preamble for the federal plan, existing NGCC units would be eligible for the OBA set-aside, because the difference in generation incentives between affected stationary combustion turbines subject to a mass goal and otherwise similar new stationary combustion turbines that are subject to the 111(b) standards is likely one of the most salient deviations in production incentives to address. The EPA expects that the new emitting source of generation that would be constructed absent the OBA set-aside, and the source of leakage, would be new NGCC units. The EPA's modeling shows that new NGCCs are the most competitive new CO2-emitting electricity-generating technology (U.S. EPA 2015).
The EPA proposes an approach under which each existing NGCC that is eligible for the set-aside receive OBA at the allocation rate only if its average capacity factor in the compliance period is above 50 percent on a net basis. The allocation rate only applies above a particular average capacity factor because it is intended to incentivize marginal generation and not generation that would have otherwise occurred absent the output-based allocation from the set-aside. Under this approach, eligible affected EGUs would receive no allowances from this set-aside for generation below this average capacity factor (although all affected EGUs will still receive allowances through the historic-generation-based approach detailed above).
Furthermore, this approach avoids incentivizing production at levels of generation below an average capacity factor of 50 percent from an eligible source, and therefore avoids giving an incentive to an inefficient or infrequently used EGU to operate if it is not otherwise economically efficient to do so.
Each eligible EGU would receive allowances at the allocation rate for all generation above an average capacity factor of 50 percent. That is, there is no "maximum" average capacity factor above which output-based allocations are not earned by an EGU eligible to receive them. This is to maintain the marginal incentive to generate from the affected EGU. The total number of allowances available in the set-aside is limited, however.
As described in the preamble and shown in the equation above, the total size of the set-aside is limited. As noted above, the size of the set-aside is the amount that would allow all existing NGCC EGUs in the state to increase their utilization to a 60 percent capacity factor and receive OBA allowances for that increase. The set-aside is thus sized based on multiplying the allocation rate by 10 percent of the capacity of eligible EGUs, where 10 percent is the difference between a capacity factor of 50 and 60 percent. The 50 percent value is based on the capacity factor above which all generation from an individual eligible EGU may receive allowances from the set aside. Limiting the size of the set-aside reduces the risk of incentivizing too much generation from eligible sources, which may lead to unintended consequences, as discussed below. The 60 percent capacity factor is used only to determine the size of the set - aside and eligible EGUs would still be able to earn additional OBA allowances for generation above a 60 percent capacity factor. That is, there is no capacity factor-based limit on the generation eligible to receive allowances from the set aside. This approach encourages competition between individual eligible EGUs and encourages those eligible EGUs to collectively operate at a high capacity factor.

Other Considerations for the Output-Based Allocation Set-Aside
OBA lowers the marginal production cost of eligible EGUs. Therefore, if these EGUs influence electricity prices, the reduction in their production costs will place downward pressure on the electricity price.
It is important that the OBA approach be designed to avoid unintended consequences. In particular, the design should avoid, to the extent possible, reduction in incentives to invest in new zero- or low-emitting generation as a result of the downward pressure the allocation approach may place on electricity prices. In part, this is why an RE set-aside is a useful complement to the OBA set-aside.
Furthermore, providing too strong a generation incentive to affected EGUs eligible for the set-aside could increase total electricity production costs. Specifically, if applied too strongly, OBA can go beyond the alignment of incentives across similar EGUs and lead to undesirable differences in incentives in the other direction. For example, if eligible affected EGUs receive too large a number of allowances for each MWh of generation, this set-aside could incentivize relatively higher-cost generation subject to a mass goal to crowd out relatively lower-cost generation from new EGUs instead of aligning their incentives to produce. This could raise the total cost of achieving overall emission levels with relatively little environmental benefit. Similarly, the size of the total set-aside is limited in order to avoid over-incentivizing production by eligible EGUs. The output-based allocation set-aside should be designed to address these economic concerns.
Studies suggest that the production incentives of existing EGUs subject to cost-of-service regulation to produce under a mass-based regulation may differ from existing EGUs that operate in a restructured market (see, e.g., Burtraw et al. 2001, Parry 2006, Fowlie, 2010). These studies suggest that existing sources in cost-of-service states may not have the same incentive to reduce their generation in the presence of a mass-emissions restriction compared to a similar situation in restructured markets. The extent to which these incentives may differ between cost-of-service and restructured markets may also affect the nature or extent of how leakage could occur in the context of mass-based implementation to achieve state goals. The proposed OBA approach would apply for all states regardless of the market structure in that state. However, the agency invites comment in the preamble on whether an approach other than the particular OBA approach in this proposal could be used in a state-determined allocation approach to address leakage. Commenters on this approach may wish to consider whether the nature of economic regulation of electricity supply in their state or region suggest any adjustment to the design of this OBA approach that could address leakage more successfully with regard to market structure.

4.0   ALLOCATIONS TO LOAD-SERVING ENTITIES
As described in section V.D.1 of the preamble to the proposed federal plan, the EPA requests comment on an alternative approach to allocation, which is allocating a portion of the allowances to load-serving entities (LSEs) rather than to affected EGUs. LSEs are the entities responsible for delivering power to retail consumers, and they include entities that are investor-owned, publicly owned, or owned by rural electric cooperatives, as well as other entities.
As described in the preamble, allocation to LSEs can help mitigate bill impacts on electricity consumers when applied in concert with certain additional design features. In particular, if LSEs commit and/or are required to pass through to ratepayers the value from selling the allocated allowances as condition of receiving an allocation of allowances, this approach can mitigate the impact of electricity bill increases on consumers that might otherwise result from application of the federal plan. This type of approach can also help to avoid or mitigate the potential for windfall profits for affected EGUs. Economic theory indicates that direct allocation to generators could result in profits to generators that, despite receiving allowances free of charge, include in the marginal cost of producing electricity some or all of the opportunity cost of having to surrender an allowance (which has an economic value) to cover the emissions associated with the marginal production of electricity.
Some existing mass-based greenhouse gas (GHG) emission programs allocate allowances to LSEs. For example, California's GHG emissions program allocates allowances for free to distribution utilities on behalf of electricity ratepayers, with the goal of protecting electricity ratepayers. California's regulations stipulate auction proceeds and allowance value obtained by an electrical distribution utility from these direct allocations "shall be used exclusively for the benefit of retail ratepayers of each electrical distribution utility......and may not be used for the benefit of entities or persons other than such ratepayers." Each distribution utility that receives an allowance allocation must submit an annual report describing how they complied with this provision in their disposition of any auction proceeds and allowance value received for the prior calendar year.
The EPA could apply this approach to allocating allowances by conditioning the receipt of allowances by LSEs on the pass through to consumers of any allowance value, if necessary. In addition, most LSEs are regulated by state public utility commissions that would have authority to ensure that the value of allowances directly allocated to LSEs be passed through to ratepayers. Other LSEs that are publicly owned or are electric cooperatives have governing structures that could ensure that allowance value be passed through to ratepayers.
Allocation to LSEs, by reducing average electricity rate impacts, could reduce incentives for socially efficient demand response, including potential investment in energy efficiency (see, for example, Blonz et al. 2010). The magnitude of this effect, relative to alternative allocation options, may depend on certain design options and types of consumers (e.g., households, commercial and industrial consumers), and whether any allocation of allowance revenue to consumers is through or separate from the billing of electricity. As described in the preamble, the EPA requests comment on the form by which LSEs may distribute allowance value to rate-payers.

5.0 REFERENCES
Blonz, Joshua, Dallas Burtraw, and Margaret A. Walls. 2010. "Climate policy's uncertain outcomes for households: the role of complex allocation schemes in cap-and-trade." The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 10(2):Article 6.
Borenstein, Severin. 2009. "To What Electricity Price Do Consumers Respond? Residential Demand Elasticity under Increasing-Block Pricing." Paper presented at National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., Summer Institute, Environmental and Energy Economics Workshop. July 2009, Cambridge, MA.
Burtraw, Dallas, Karen Palmer, Ranjit Bharvirkar, and Anthony Paul. 2001. The Effect of Allowance Allocation on the Cost of Carbon Emission Trading. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 01-30.
Fell, Harrison, Shanjun Li, and Anthony Paul. 2004. "A new look at residential electricity demand using household expenditure data." International Journal of Industrial Organization 33: 37-47.
Fowlie, Meredith. 2010. "Emissions trading, electricity restructuring, and investment in pollution abatement." The American Economic Review. 837-869.
Ito, Koichiro. 2014. "Do Consumers Respond to Marginal or Average Price? Evidence from Nonlinear Electricity Pricing." Annual Economic Review. 104(2): 537 - 563.
Parry, Ian WH. 2005. "Fiscal interactions and the costs of controlling pollution from electricity." RAND Journal of Economics 36:849-869.
USEPA. 2015. Mass-based without Set-Aside.