[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 239 (Thursday, December 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75475-75483]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29350]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0574; EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0069; EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-
0196, 0197, 0198, 0201, 0202, 0203, 0204 and 0207; FRL-9903-89-OSWER]

National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 57

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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 nine sites to the General Superfund section
of the NPL and changes the name of one NPL site.

DATES: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP is January 13,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
     Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW;
William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC
20004,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:
     Holly Inglis, 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;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV),
U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA
19103;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Jennifer Wendel, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC,
TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303;
404-562-8799.
     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.
     Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201
Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRERNB, Lenexa, KS 66219;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S.
EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303-
312-6484.
     Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
415-947-4250.
     Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th
Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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. Site Name Change
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, is available on 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   City/county,
           Site name                  state            Docket ID No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockets, Fireworks, and Flares  Rialto, CA.......  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-057
 (RFF) (formerly known as B.F.                      4.
 Goodrich).
Beck's Lake...................  South Bend, IN...  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-019
                                                    6.
Garden City Ground Water Plume  Garden City, IN..  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-019
                                                    7.
Keystone Corridor Ground Water  Indianapolis, IN.  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-019
 Contamination.                                     8.
Cristex Drum..................  Oxford, NC.......  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-020
                                                    1.
Hemphill Road TCE.............  Gastonia, NC.....  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-020
                                                    2.
Collins & Aikman Plant          Farmington, NH...  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-020
 (Former).                                          3.
Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine.  Laguna Pueblo, NM  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-006
                                                    9.
Wilcox Oil Company............  Creek County, OK.  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-020
                                                    4.
Makah Reservation Warmhouse     Neah Bay, WA.....  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2013-020
 Beach Dump.                                        7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 nine sites to the General
Superfund Section of the NPL. All of the sites included in this final
rulemaking are being added to the NPL based on HRS scores of 28.50 or
above. The sites are presented in the table below:
    General Superfund section:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                              Site name                          City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN......................................  Beck's Lake....................  South Bend.
IN......................................  Garden City Ground Water Plume.  Garden City.
IN......................................  Keystone Corridor Ground Water   Indianapolis.
                                           Contamination.
NC......................................  Cristex Drum...................  Oxford.
NC......................................  Hemphill Road TCE..............  Gastonia.
NH......................................  Collins & Aikman Plant (Former)  Farmington.

NM......................................  Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine..  Laguna Pueblo.
OK......................................  Wilcox Oil Company.............  Creek County.
WA......................................  Makah Reservation Warmhouse      Neah Bay.
                                           Beach Dump.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 nine sites to
the NPL, all to the General Superfund Section.
    Comments on two of the sites, Beck's Lake (South Bend, IN) and
Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine (Laguna Pueblo, NM) are being addressed
in response to comment support documents available in the public docket
concurrently with this rule. Two generic comments, applicable to the
Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine and all other sites proposed in March
2012, have been previously addressed in the September 2012 NPL final
rule preamble (77 FR 57495, September 18, 2012).
    None of the other seven sites being added to the NPL in this rule,
which were proposed May 24, 2013 (78 FR 31464), received comments
relating to the HRS score. Five sites received no comments and are,
therefore, being added to the NPL. They are Collins & Aikman Plant
(Former) (Farmington, NH), Cristex Drum (Oxford, NC), Hemphill Road TCE
(Gastonia, NC), Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination
(Indianapolis, IN) and Wilcox Oil Company (Creek County, OK). Although
one comment was submitted to the Hemphill Road TCE docket, it was
directed at the Smurfit-Stone Mill site, and will be addressed at the
time a final decision is made on that site.
    The Makah Reservation Warmhouse Beach Dump (Neah Bay, WA) received
one comment which supported placing the site on the NPL. In response,
the Makah Reservation Warmhouse Beach Dump has been added to the NPL.
Listing makes a site eligible for remedial action funding under CERCLA.
The site will be further investigated during the remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) phase of the Superfund process
to determine what response, if any, is appropriate to ensure protection
of public health and the environment.
    The Garden City Ground Water Plume (Garden City, IN) received one
comment. The comment stated that tribal governments should be required
to allow access to all records to any American taxpayer who requested
it. The comment must have been directed to the wrong docket, since the
Garden City Ground Water Plume has no tribal involvement. If the
comment was directed to the Makah Reservation Warmhouse Beach Dump, as
opposed to some other regulatory docket, EPA's response is that this
issue is unrelated to listing and thus has no bearing on EPA's decision
to list the site.

C. Site Name Change

    The EPA is changing the name of the B.F. Goodrich site in Rialto,
California to Rockets, Fireworks, and Flares (RFF). This site was added
to the NPL on September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48412). This name change was
proposed on May 24, 2013 (78 FR 31464) (docket number EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2008-0574). In response to a request by a Settling Work Party to change
the site name, EPA had proposed changing the name to Locust Ave. The
City of Rialto submitted comments in opposition to the new proposed
name. The comments stated that the proposed name would stigmatize the
local community and confuse the general public about the nature of the
contamination. The comments included a unanimous resolution passed by
the City Council and signed by the Mayor reflecting the community's
unequivocal disapproval of the new proposed site name.
    In response, the new site name has been revised to Rockets,
Fireworks, and Flares (RFF). Since the primary purpose of an NPL
listing is to inform the public that the EPA has determined that the
site warrants further investigation, the EPA attempts to select the
name that clearly informs the public but, when possible, does not
offend local sensitivities. With the limited purpose of the NPL, as
stated in RSR Corp. v. EPA, 102 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1997), when naming
a site, EPA may choose a name that reflects ``the location or nature of
the problems at a site and that are readily and easily associated with
the site by the general public.'' The new name informs the public of
activities that are believed to have contributed to contamination at
the site.

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 Use

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 (D.C. 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: November 27, 2013.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
    40 CFR Part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

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. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the site name entry located in Rialto, California that
currently reads'' B.F. Goodrich'' to read ``Rockets, Fireworks, and
Flares (RFF).''; and
0
b. Adding entries for ``Beck's Lake, Garden City Ground Water Plume,
Keystone Corridor Ground Water Contamination, Cristex Drum, Hemphill
Road TCE, Collins & Aikman Plant (Former), Jackpile-Paguate Uranium
Mine, Wilcox Oil Company, and Makah Reservation Warmhouse Beach Dump''
in alphabetical order by state;
    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)\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
CA.........................  Rockets, Fireworks, and      Rialto
                              Flares (RFF).

                                                  * * * * * * *
IN.........................  Beck's Lake................  South Bend

                                                  * * * * * * *
IN.........................  Garden City Ground Water     Garden City
                              Plume.

                                                  * * * * * * *
IN.........................  Keystone Corridor Ground     Indianapolis
                              Water Contamination.

                                                  * * * * * * *
NC.........................  Cristex Drum...............  Oxford

                                                  * * * * * * *
NC.........................  Hemphill Road TCE..........  Gastonia

                                                  * * * * * * *
NH.........................  Collins & Aikman Plant       Farmington
                              (Former).

                                                  * * * * * * *
NM.........................  Jackpile-Paguate Uranium     Laguna Pueblo
                              Mine.

                                                  * * * * * * *
OK.........................  Wilcox Oil Company.........  Creek County

                                                  * * * * * * *
WA.........................  Makah Reservation Warmhouse  Neah Bay
                              Beach Dump.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(a)\ = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS
  score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50).
S = State top priority (included among the 100 top priority sites regardless of score).
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-29350 Filed 12-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 21185]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08244]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0025]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with Part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice
that by a document dated February 21, 2013, the Norfolk Southern
Corporation (NS) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of a
signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2013-0025.
    Applicant: Norfolk Southern Corporation, Mr. Brian Sykes, Chief
Engineer C&S Engineering, 1200 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia
30309.
    NS seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance of automatic
signals within traffic control signal (TCS) territory and the
installation of a cab signal system without wayside signals on the NS
Pittsburgh Line, from Milepost (MP) PT 352.2 (CP Solomon) to MP PT
353.35/PC 0.0, and on its Fort Wayne Line from MP PT 353.35/PC 0.0 to
MP PC 15.0 (CP Leets). All of the existing automatic signals on both
line segments will be retired and cab signals without wayside signaling
will be installed.
    The installation of cab signals without wayside signals will
include ``block clear'' signals at all control points in the event of
an onboard cab signal failure en route.
    NS seeks to make the proposed changes because the installation of
cab signals without wayside signals will improve train operations and
will facilitate the installation of Positive Train Control (PTC) on
both lines. NS's implementation plan, if approved, would be to design
and install the cab signals without wayside signals on the section of
the line between CP Leets, MP 15.0, and CP Bell, MP PC 4.8, as soon as
the approval is obtained. CP Bell, MP PC 4.8, to CP Solomon, MP PC
352.2, would follow as a later implementation phase.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by May 24, 2013 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as is practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2013.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-08244 Filed 4-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39964-39967]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16054]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1146; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-25]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Restricted Areas R-2907A and R-2907B, Lake George,
FL; and R-2910, Pinecastle, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action expands the restricted airspace at Lake George,
FL, and Pinecastle, FL, providing additional restricted airspace needed
to contain

airborne laser operations and other hazardous activities. The changes
allow more realistic training in current tactics to be conducted at the
range.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, August 22, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and ATC
Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 22, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to restructure and expand the
restricted areas at Lake George, FL, and Pinecastle, FL (75 FR 80372).
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. Over 35
responses were received. The commenters included pilots, flight
instructors, property owners, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
(AOPA), Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) and Phoenix East
Aviation, Inc.

Discussion of Comments

    The majority of the commenters objected to the proposed
establishment of two new restricted areas, R-2907B (located between R-
2907 and R-2906); and R-2910D (located between R-2910 and R-2907).
Because both R-2907B and R-2910D would extend from 500 feet MSL up to
FL 230, the commenters argued that this would block two important east-
west VFR corridors forcing VFR pilots to make an extensive
circumnavigation of the Pinecastle/Lake George complex or risk flying
beneath the restricted areas below 500 feet. Many commenters suggested
that raising the floors anywhere from 1,000 feet to 3,000 feet would
resolve the situation.
    After negotiations with the proponent, it was decided to subdivide
R-2907B and R-2910D into two areas each with the split at 2,000 feet
MSL. As agreed, R-2907B extends from 2,000 feet MSL up to FL 230; and a
new area, R-2907C, is established directly below R-2907B with vertical
limits of 500 feet MSL up to but not including 2,000 feet MSL.
Similarly, R-2910D is split at 2,000 feet MSL with dimensions of 2,000
feet MSL up to FL 230; and a new area, R-2910E directly beneath R-
2910D, with vertical limits of 500 feet MSL up to but not including
2,000 feet MSL. To provide greater opportunity for availability of the
VFR corridors, the proponent agreed to limit the activation of R-2907C
and R-2910E to a maximum of 800 hours per year. The idea of subdividing
the areas at 3,000-feet MSL instead of 2,000 feet was considered.
However, the proponent was concerned that a 3,000-foot split could
result in the need for more frequent activation of the ``low''
restricted areas to accomplish some mission profiles, which could
further limit access to the VFR corridors.
    Another issue noted by the commenters was the compression of
airspace due to the close proximity of the southern boundary of R-2910
(extending from the surface to 6,000 feet MSL) to the northern boundary
of the Orlando Class B airspace area and the Orlando Mode C veil.
Because the R-2910 boundary effectively abuts the Orlando Class B/Mode
C veil (a gap less than 1 NM wide) pilots transiting the area would be
forced to choose whether to climb above the 6,000-foot restricted area,
risk intrusion into the Class B airspace or the restricted area, or
make a significant deviation to avoid the area entirely. Non-electrical
system/non-transponder equipped aircraft face similar choices regarding
the Class B boundary and the Mode C veil. Two commenters suggested
moving the southernmost boundary of R-2910 five nautical miles (NM) to
the north to alleviate the problem.
    Moving the boundary five NM to the north, as suggested, would
eliminate R-2910C and most of R-2910B which would adversely affect
mission accomplishment. The proponent agreed that R-2910C will be
activated only when absolutely necessary to accomplish the mission.
When R-2910C is not in use, the gap between R-2910B and the Class B
boundary/Mode C veil would be about 2.5 NM.
    A number of commenters were concerned about the inability to
communicate by radio with the controlling agency to determine the
status of the airspace, particularly at lower altitudes. They requested
that a communications frequency for the controlling agency be printed
on the Sectional Aeronautical Chart to make it easier for pilots to
obtain the airspace status while en route.
    The proponent agreed to this request and provided a VHF frequency
for contacting the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility,
Jacksonville (call sign ``Sealord''). Communications coverage with
``Sealord'' is much better due to the transmitter site being located
within the Pinecastle Range complex. Local pilots taking off from
airports that lie underneath the Palatka MOA, as well as pilots
transiting the area, should be able to determine the status of the
airspace without delay. In fact, a communications frequency box for
obtaining restricted area status is already published near the
restricted areas on both the Jacksonville Sectional Aeronautical Chart
and the Tampa/Orlando VFR Terminal Area Chart.
    Some commenters said that the published time of designation for the
restricted areas more accurately reflect actual utilization. The
proponent agreed to reduce the current charted times from
``Intermittent, 0500-0100 local time, daily; other times by NOTAM 6
hours in advance,'' to ``Intermittent, 0800-2400 local time, daily;
other times by NOTAM 6 hours in advance.'' During periods when the
airspace is not needed by the using agency for its designated purpose,
the airspace will be returned to the controlling agency (i.e.,
Jacksonville ARTCC) for access by other airspace users. Keep in mind
that the areas are not constantly in use during the published times.
These times reflect the most likely periods when activity could occur
and the 6-hour NOTAM provision provides the using agency with the
flexibility to accommodate mission requirements outside the ``core''
hours. The charted status frequency box provides a means for pilots to
obtain real time status of the restricted areas.

Differences From NPRM

    Restricted area R-2906 was added to this rule to reduce the time of
designation to be consistent with the adjacent restricted areas and to
update the name of the using agency. The current boundaries and
altitudes for R-2906 are not affected by this rule.
    The time of designation for all Pinecastle, FL, and Lake George,
FL, restricted areas is reduced from ``Intermittent, 0500 to 0100 local
time, daily; other times by NOTAM 6 hours in advance,'' to
``Intermittent, 0800-2400, daily; other times by NOTAM, 6 hours in
advance.''
    R-2907B was further divided into two subareas: R-2907B and R-2907C,
to preserve access to a VFR corridor. Similarly, R-2910D was divided
into two subareas: R-2910D and R-2910E, to preserve access to a VFR
corridor.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 73 by modifying restricted areas R-
2906, Rodman, FL; R-2907A and B, Lake George, FL; and R-2910,
Pinecastle, FL, as outlined below.

R-2906 Changes

    The NPRM did not propose any changes for R-2906. However, it was
decided to reduce the time of designation for R-2906 from
``Intermittent, 0500 to 0100 local time,

daily; other times by NOTAM 6 hours in advance,'' to ``Intermittent,
0800 to 2400 local time, daily; other times by NOTAM 6 hours in
advance,'' to match the times for R-2907 and R-2910. In addition, an
editorial correction is made to the using agency name by removing the
abbreviation ``NAS'' from the text. The boundaries and altitudes of R-
2906 remain unchanged.

R-2907 Changes

    This action expands the boundaries of R-2907A westward to
incorporate that restricted airspace currently designated as R-2907B.
Further, the upper altitude limit in that incorporated section
(currently 6,000 feet and 9,000 feet MSL) is raised to FL 230 to match
the current R-2907A ceiling. The R-2907B title is redescribed as a new
restricted area immediately to the north of the newly incorporated
section of R-2907A. The new R-2907B extends northward from the expanded
R-2907A boundary to abut the boundary of the southern half of existing
restricted area R-2906, Rodman, FL. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that
R-2907B would extend from 500 feet MSL up to FL 230. After commenters
objected, as discussed above, it was decided to further subdivide R-
2907B into two areas. The revised R-2907B extends from 2,000 feet MSL
up to FL 230; and a new area, R-2907C extends from 500 feet MSL up to
but not including 2,000 feet MSL (directly below R-2907B). R-2907C will
be activated only on a limited basis, not to exceed 800 hours per year,
and only when absolutely needed to accomplish the mission. This ensures
greater availability of the VFR corridor than what was originally
proposed.

R-2910 Changes

    This action expands and restructures R-2910. Currently, R-2910
extends from the surface to three different altitudes: 6,000 feet MSL,
9,000 feet MSL and FL 230. This action replaces R-2910 with five
subareas: R-2910A, R-2910B, R-2910C, R-2910D and R-2910E. The new R-
2910A consists of that part of the existing R-2910 running from the
current northwest end of R-2910 southeastward to latitude
29[deg]00'00'' N. The new R-2910A extends from the surface up to FL
230. As proposed, the remaining section of the current R-2910 (i.e.,
the airspace south of latitude 29[deg]00'0'' N.) is split into two new
subareas, designated R-2910B and R-2910C, that each extend from the
surface to 6,000 feet MSL. The 6,000-foot MSL ceiling of these two
subareas provides airspace to enable nonparticipating aircraft to climb
above that segment of the R-2910 complex while remaining outside the
Orlando Class B airspace area. In response to comments about the
compression of airspace between the Class B airspace/Orlando Mode C
veil and R-2910, the U.S. Navy agreed to activate R-2910C only when
absolutely necessary to accomplish the mission. When R-2910C is not in
use, this will provide additional room for pilots wishing to navigate
below 6,000 feet MSL between the Class B/Mode C veil and the boundary
of R-2910B.
    An additional new restricted area is established within the
airspace that lies between the new R-2910A and the expanded R-2907A. As
proposed, this new area was designated R-2910D extending from 500 feet
MSL to FL 230. In response to commenters, objections discussed above,
R-2910D was changed to extend from 2,000 feet MSL to FL 230 and a new
area R-2907E, extending from 500 feet MSL to but not including 2,000
feet MSL, is established directly below R-2907D. This allows greater
availability of the VFR corridor. As with R-2907C, above, the U.S. Navy
agreed to a maximum of 800 hours per year for use of R-2910E.
    This rule includes several editorial changes to update controlling
and using agency information. The controlling agency for R-2907A is
updated by replacing ``Jacksonville ARTC Center'' with ``Jacksonville
ARTCC.'' The using agency for R-2907A is changed from ``Jacksonville
Operating Area Coordination Center, (JOACC), NAS Jacksonville, FL,'' to
``U.S. Navy, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility, Jacksonville
(FACSFAC JAX), Jacksonville, FL.'' The using agency for R-2906 and the
remaining R-2907 and R-2910 areas is edited by adding ``U.S. Navy'' and
removing the abbreviation ``NAS.''
    In a separate nonrulemaking action, the FAA is modifying the
Palatka 1 and Palatka 2 military operations areas (MOA) to reduce the
times of use to match the modified restricted area times; amending the
boundary descriptions to reflect the restricted area changes, and
excluding the restricted airspace when the restricted areas are active.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
SubtitleVII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it will restructure special use airspace in Florida to accommodate
military training requirements.

Environmental Review

    In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures,'' paragraphs 402 and 404d, the FAA has
conducted an independent evaluation of the U.S. Navy's ``Final
Environmental Assessment (FEA),'' dated August 2012, regarding the
expansion of the Pinecastle Range Complex. The FAA adopted the FEA and
prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision dated
June 2013. The FAA has determined that no significant impacts would
occur as a result of the Federal Action and therefore that preparation
of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted and a Finding of
No Significant Impact in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.4 (e) is
appropriate.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited Areas, Restricted Areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  73.29  (Amended)

0
2. Sec.  73.29 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-2906 Rodman, FL [Amended]

    By removing the current time of designation and using agency and
inserting the following:
    Time of designation. Intermittent, 0800-2400, daily; other times
by NOTAM 6 hours in advance.
    Using agency. U.S. Navy, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance
Facility, Jacksonville (FACSFAC JAX), Jacksonville, FL.
* * * * *

R-2907A Lake George, FL [Amended]

    By removing the current boundaries, time of designation and
using agency and inserting the following:

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 29[deg]22'51'' N., long.
81[deg]31'19'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]12'31'' N., long. 81[deg]29'59''
W.; to lat. 29[deg]12'31'' N., long. 81[deg]38'29'' W.; to lat.
29[deg]15'06'' N., long. 81[deg]39'59'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]15'06''
N., long. 81[deg]51'49'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]20'06'' N., long.
81[deg]51'49'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]20'06'' N., long. 81[deg]39'59''
W.; to lat. 29[deg]23'01'' N., long. 81[deg]39'59'' W.; to lat.
29[deg]23'01'' N., long. 81[deg]38'54'' W.; thence clockwise along
the 5 NM arc centered at lat. 29[deg]19'12'' N., long.
81[deg]35'14'' W. to the point of beginning.
    Time of designation. Intermittent, 0800-2400, daily; other times
by NOTAM, 6 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Navy, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance
Facility, Jacksonville (FACSFAC JAX), Jacksonville, FL.
* * * * *

R-2907B Lake George, FL [Amended]

    By removing the current boundaries, designated altitudes, time
of designation and using agency and inserting the following:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 29[deg]25'41'' N., long.
81[deg]41'47'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]23'01'' N., long. 81[deg]39'59''
W.; to lat. 29[deg]20'06'' N., long. 81[deg]39'59'' W.; to lat.
29[deg]20'06'' N., long. 81[deg]51'49'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]29'30''
N., long. 81[deg]51'41'' W.; thence counterclockwise along a 5 NM
arc centered at lat. 29[deg]29'01'' N., long. 81[deg]45'59'' W.; to
the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 2,000 feet MSL to FL 230.
    Time of designation. Intermittent, 0800-2400, daily; other times
by NOTAM, 6 hours in advance.
    Using agency. U.S. Navy, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance
Facility, Jacksonville (FACSFAC JAX), Jacksonville, FL.
* * * * *

R-2907C Lake George, FL [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 29[deg]25'41'' N., long.
81[deg]41'47'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]23'01'' N., long. 81[deg]39'59''
W.; to lat. 29[deg]20'06'' N., long. 81[deg]39'59'' W.; to lat.
29[deg]20'06'' N., long. 81[deg]51'49'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]29'30''
N., long. 81[deg]51'41'' W.; thence counterclockwise along a 5 NM
arc centered at lat. 29[deg]29'01'' N., long. 81[deg]45'59'' W.; to
the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 500 feet MSL to, but not including, 2,000
feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Intermittent, 0800-2400, daily; other times
by NOTAM, 6 hours in advance; not to exceed 800 hours per year.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Navy, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance
Facility, Jacksonville (FACSFAC JAX), Jacksonville, FL.
* * * * *

R-2910 Pinecastle, FL [Removed]

* * * * *

R-2910A Pinecastle, FL [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 29[deg]07'58'' N., long.
81[deg]48'29'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]10'01'' N., long. 81[deg]50'34''
W.; to lat. 29[deg]14'01'' N., long. 81[deg]45'49'' W.; to lat.
29[deg]11'51'' N., long. 81[deg]42'59'' W.; thence clockwise along a
5 NM arc centered at lat. 29[deg]06'53'' N., long. 81[deg]42'54''
W.; to lat. 29[deg]10'14'' N., long. 81[deg]38'39'' W.; to lat.
29[deg]00'00'' N., long. 81[deg]30'00'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]00'01''
N., long. 81[deg]42'29'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]03'15'' N., long.
81[deg]46'50'' W.; thence clockwise along a 5 NM arc centered at
lat. 29[deg]06'53'' N., long. 81[deg]42'54'' W.; to the point of
beginning.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to FL 230.
    Time of designation. Intermittent, 0800-2400, daily; other times
by NOTAM, 6 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Navy, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance
Facility, Jacksonville (FACSFAC JAX), Jacksonville, FL.
* * * * *

R-2910B Pinecastle, FL [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 29[deg]00'00'' N., long.
81[deg]30'00'' W.; to lat. 28[deg]57'56'' N., long. 81[deg]28'24''
W.; to lat. 28[deg]55'20'' N., long. 81[deg]36'12'' W.; to lat.
29[deg]00'01'' N., long. 81[deg]42'29'' W.; to the point of
beginning.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to 6,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Intermittent, 0800-2400, daily; other times
by NOTAM, 6 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Navy, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance
Facility, Jacksonville (FACSFAC JAX), Jacksonville, FL.
* * * * *

R-2910C Pinecastle, FL [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 28[deg]57'56'' N., long.
81[deg]28'24'' W.; to lat. 28[deg]53'39'' N., long. 81[deg]33'56''
W.; to lat. 28[deg]55'20'' N., long. 81[deg]36'12'' W.; to the point
of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to 6,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Intermittent, 0800-2400, daily; other times
by NOTAM, 6 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Navy, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance
Facility, Jacksonville (FACSFAC JAX), Jacksonville, FL.
* * * * *

R-2910D Pinecastle, FL [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 29[deg]12'31'' N., long.
81[deg]29'59'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]00'00'' N., long. 81[deg]30'00''
W.; to lat. 29[deg]10'14'' N., long. 81[deg]38'39'' W.; thence
counterclockwise along a 5 NM arc centered at lat. 29[deg]06'53''
N., long. 81[deg]42'54'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]11'51'' N., long.
81[deg]42'59'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]14'01'' N., long. 81[deg]45'49''
W.; to lat. 29[deg]10'01'' N., long. 81[deg]50'34'' W.; to lat.
29[deg]15'55'' N., long. 81[deg]56'40'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]20'06''
N., long. 81[deg]51'49'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]15'06'' N., long.
81[deg]51'49'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]15'06'' N., long. 81[deg]39'59''
W.; to lat. 29[deg]12'31'' N., long. 81[deg]38'29'' W.; to the point
of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 2,000 feet MSL to FL 230.
    Time of designation. Intermittent, 0800-2400, daily; other times
by NOTAM, 6 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Navy, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance
Facility, Jacksonville (FACSFAC JAX), Jacksonville, FL.
* * * * *

R-2910E Pinecastle, FL [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 29[deg]12'31'' N., long.
81[deg]29'59'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]00'00'' N., long. 81[deg]30'00''
W.; to lat. 29[deg]10'14'' N., long. 81[deg]38'39'' W.; thence
counterclockwise along a 5 NM arc centered at lat. 29[deg]06'53''
N., long. 81[deg]42'54'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]11'51'' N., long.
81[deg]42'59'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]14'01'' N., long. 81[deg]45'49''
W.; to lat. 29[deg]10'01'' N., long. 81[deg]50'34'' W.; to lat.
29[deg]15'55'' N., long. 81[deg]56'40'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]20'06''
N., long. 81[deg]51'49'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]15'06'' N., long.
81[deg]51'49'' W.; to lat. 29[deg]15'06'' N., long. 81[deg]39'59''
W.; to lat. 29[deg]12'31'' N., long. 81[deg]38'29'' W.; to the point
of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 500 feet MSL to, but not including, 2,000
feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Intermittent, 0800-2400, daily; other times
by NOTAM, 6 hours in advance; not to exceed 800 hours per year.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Jacksonville ARTCC.
    Using agency. U.S. Navy, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance
Facility, Jacksonville (FACSFAC JAX), Jacksonville, FL.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 27, 2013.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2013-16054 Filed 7-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P