[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14805-14813]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05397]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0454, 0456, 0457, 0458, 0459, 0460, 0461, 0462, 0464,
0465, 0466 and 0467; FRL-9184-01-OLEM]

National Priorities List

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 12 sites to the NPL, 11 to the General
Superfund section and one to the Federal Facilities section.

DATES: The rule is effective on April 15, 2022.

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, 202/566-0276.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email: [email protected], Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204T), 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.
    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; 617/918-1413.
     James Desir, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4342.
     Lorie Baker, Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/
814-3355.
     Sandra Bramble, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN),
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/
562-8926.
     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.
     Michelle Delgado-Brown, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX),
U.S. EPA, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Mailcode SED, Dallas, TX 75270;
214/665-3154.
     Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA,
11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7956.
     Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY),
U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129;
303/312-6578.
     Eugenia Chow, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
415/972-3160.
     Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 155, Mailcode 12-D12-1, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/890-0591.

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 EPA
Headquarters docket?
    C. What documents are available for review at the EPA 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. Clarification of Figure for Meeker Avenue Plume Site
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act

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. On January 9, 2017
(82 FR 2760), a subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS to
enable the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous substances or
pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures
through subsurface intrusion when evaluating sites for the NPL. The
current HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil
exposure and subsurface intrusion, 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) 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''
(40 CFR 300.5).) 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 previously, 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 more information on the CCL, see the
EPA's internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/construction-completions-national-priorities-list-npl-sites-number.

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 https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#reuse.

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 website: https://
www.epa.gov/

superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.
    The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which state
and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is 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 between the EPA and states and
tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

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 EPA regional offices.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
https://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 in section
II.D.

                                      Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Site name                   City/county, state                      Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Westside Lead........................  Atlanta, GA............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0454.
North 5th Street Groundwater           Goshen, IN.............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0456.
 Contamination.
Lower Neponset River.................  Boston/Milton, MA......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0457.
Bear Creek Sediments.................  Baltimore County, MD...  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0458.
Michner Plating--Mechanic Street.....  Jackson, MI............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0459.
Southeast Hennepin Area Groundwater    Minneapolis, MN........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0460.
 and Vapor.
Meeker Avenue Plume..................  Brooklyn, NY...........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0461.
Bradford Island......................  Cascade Locks, OR......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0462.
Galey and Lord Plant.................  Society Hill, SC.......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0464.
National Fireworks...................  Cordova, TN............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0465.
Unity Auto Mart......................  Unity, WI..............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0466.
Paden City Groundwater...............  Paden City, WV.........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0467.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What documents are available for review at the EPA headquarters
docket?

    The headquarters docket for this rule contains the HRS score
sheets, the documentation record describing the information used to
compute the score, a list of documents referenced in the documentation
record for each site and any other information used to support the NPL
listing of the site.

C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional dockets?

    The EPA 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. These reference documents are available only in the
regional dockets.

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
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-site-name or by contacting the Superfund docket (see contact information in
the beginning portion of this document).

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Additions to the NPL

    This final rule adds the following 12 sites to the NPL, 11 to the
General Superfund section and one to the Federal Facilities section.
All of these sites are being added to the NPL based on an HRS score of
28.50 or above.

                                            General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                                Site name                         City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA.......................................  Westside Lead...................  Atlanta.
IN.......................................  North 5th Street Groundwater      Goshen.
                                            Contamination.
MA.......................................  Lower Neponset River............  Boston/Milton.
MD.......................................  Bear Creek Sediments............  Baltimore County.
MI.......................................  Michner Plating--Mechanic Street  Jackson.
MN.......................................  Southeast Hennepin Area           Minneapolis.
                                            Groundwater and Vapor.
NY.......................................  Meeker Avenue Plume.............  Brooklyn.
SC.......................................  Galey and Lord Plant............  Society Hill.
TN.......................................  National Fireworks..............  Cordova.
WI.......................................  Unity Auto Mart.................  Unity.
WV.......................................  Paden City Groundwater..........  Paden City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                           Federal Facilities Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                                Site name                         City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR.......................................  Bradford Island.................  Cascade Locks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The EPA is adding 12 sites to
the NPL in this final rule. All 12 sites were proposed for addition to
the NPL on September 9, 2021 (86 FR 50515).
    Comments on the Westside Lead and Bradford Island sites are being
addressed in response to comment support documents available in the
public docket concurrently with this rule. To view public comments on
these sites, as well as the EPA's responses, please refer to the
support documents available per docket ID number at https://www.regulations.gov. Below is a summary of significant comments
received on the remaining sites.
    Paden City Groundwater:
    The EPA received seven comments on the Paden City Groundwater site.
One comment did not oppose adding the site to the NPL and one comment
supported listing. Five comments, in support of listing Paden City
Groundwater, were erroneously received in the dockets for Westside
Lead, Bear Creek Sediments, and Bradford Island. Two additional
comments were received in the Paden City Groundwater docket but were
comments directed at the Meeker Avenue Plume and Galey and Lord Plant
sites. Three comments supported listing the Paden City Groundwater site
and expressed concerns related to the health impacts of
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) contamination in groundwater, and one comment
also expressed concerns about the financial impact of the need to
purchase clean drinking water due to contaminated tap water. One
commenter submitted comments regarding possible contamination in a
basement and inquired whether there should be concern regarding the
contamination.
    Following listing, the EPA will be conducting additional sampling
to determine the extent of the contamination, determine what actual
risks are associated with the site, and take necessary actions to
address any health impacts. The EPA performs a comprehensive risk
assessment for the site as part of further investigations that
typically follow listing. A subsequent stage of the Superfund process,
the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and hazards
at the site more comprehensively. The results of risk assessment
activities will be considered during the evaluation of the need for
remedial actions at the site. Additionally, the EPA has contacted one
resident directly to address specific health concerns and to discuss
the location of their properties in relation to the site contamination.
    National Fireworks:
    The EPA received three comments on the National Fireworks site from
two private citizens and one non-profit organization. One private
citizen and the non-profit organization expressed support for listing
the National Fireworks site on the NPL due the presence of contaminated
groundwater. The non-profit organization stated that it was concerned
that per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) may be present in the
groundwater in addition to chlorinated solvents due the former use of
industrial degreasers at the site. The third commenter, a private
citizen, did not oppose adding the site to the NPL but expressed
opposition to the rationale for listing the site. The commenter stated
that the study used to support listing contained inaccuracies and
attributed contamination to an operation that was present for only two
years even though other possible origins of the contamination existed.
The commenter asserted that these other possible origins included an
industrial park that had operated for 35 years and a railroad that
operated in area until the mid-1990s.
    The National Fireworks site qualifies for addition to the NPL
because it has achieved an HRS score of 28.50 or greater, as is
demonstrated in the HRS documentation record at proposal. Achieving a
site score of greater than 28.50 indicates that the site is eligible
for inclusion on the NPL and therefore may warrant further
investigation. The HRS documentation record at proposal outlines the
specific rationale for attributing the observed release to groundwater
to the site consistent with the requirements in the HRS. The
requirements in the HRS state that ``some portion of the release must
be attributable to the site.'' As indicated in the attribution section
of the HRS documentation record at proposal, attribution of at least
some of the release is supported, in part, by the detection of
explosives, which are unique to munitions manufacturing, in soil
collected from the burn pit at the National Fireworks facility,
demonstrating a lack of containment.
    The HRS documentation record at proposal outlines the specific
rationale for attributing the groundwater contamination to the
manufacturing of explosives during World War II. Attribution of at
least some of the contamination detected in groundwater is supported by
the identification of the same contaminants in groundwater that were in
site sources and the detection of explosives, which are unique to
munitions manufacturing, in soil collected from the burn pit at the
National Fireworks facility.
    The EPA will be conducting additional sampling to determine the
extent of the contamination. If additional source areas are discovered,
as the third commenter insists, EPA will fully investigate and clean up
those additional source areas. A subsequent stage of the Superfund
process, the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and
hazards at the site more comprehensively.
    Galey and Lord Plant:
    The EPA received a total of 16 comments submitted by private
citizens, the mayor of the Town of Society Hill, the governing body of
Darlington County, and the owners of a local farm near the Galey and
Lord Plant site. One additional comment was received in the docket but
was intended for the Southeast Hennepin Area Groundwater and Vapor
docket and supported listing of that site. One comment from the
governing body of Darlington County in support of listing the site was
received but was submitted to the Paden City Groundwater docket.
Comments received did not oppose adding the Galey and Lord Plant site
to the NPL. The mayor of the Town of Society Hill submitted a comment
that expressed support for listing and concern for human health,
wildlife, and waterways. Two private citizens and the owners of the
local farm submitted comments regarding the health impacts associated
with contamination from the Galey and Lord facility. One of the
commenters expressed concern for impacts to the commenter's health
experienced directly following consumption of local well water. One
comment from a private citizen on areas not a part of the site also
included specific concerns

regarding the impact of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in groundwater. In addition to commenting
on health impacts, the owners of the local farm expressed general
concerns regarding the impact of contamination on its property and
specific concern over the economic impact of the site and cleanup
actions on its business. This commenter requested input about the party
that initiated the cleanup process for this site. The South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control referred the Galey and
Lord site to EPA for NPL consideration following an assessment of the
plant site and the discovery of contamination in private drinking water
wells near the fields where wastewater sludge from the plant was
disposed of.
    Following listing, the EPA will be conducting additional sampling
to determine the extent of the contamination, determine what actual
risks are associated with the site, and take necessary actions to
address any health impacts. A subsequent stage of the Superfund
process, the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and
hazards at the site more comprehensively. The EPA performs a
comprehensive risk assessment for the site as part of further
investigations that typically follow listing. The results of risk
assessment activities will be considered during the evaluation of the
need for remedial actions at the site. The EPA has contacted the
concerned individual directly to address their specific health
concerns.
    Regarding economic impacts, the EPA notes that there are both costs
and benefits that can be associated with listing a site. Among the
benefits are increased health and environmental protection as a result
of increased public awareness of potential hazards. In addition to the
potential for federally financed remedial actions, the addition of a
site to the NPL could accelerate privately financed, voluntary cleanup
efforts. Listing sites as national priority targets also may give
states increased support for funding responses at particular sites. As
a result of the additional CERCLA remedies, there will be lower human
exposure to high-risk chemicals, and higher quality surface water,
ground water, soil, and air. Therefore, it is possible that any
perceived or actual negative fluctuations in property values or
development opportunities that may result from contamination may also
be countered by positive fluctuations when a CERCLA investigation and
any necessary cleanup are completed.
    Bear Creek Sediments:
    The EPA received 13 comments on the Bear Creek Sediments site. One
additional comment was received from a private citizen but was intended
for the Paden City Groundwater docket. The 13 comments received, from
11 private citizens and two non-profit organizations, expressed support
for listing the site on the NPL. One commenter, a non-profit
organization, requested that community engagement opportunities be
available if the site is placed on the NPL. Another non-profit
organization supported listing but included requests for further
actions in its comment submission. The non-profit organization also
submitted comments expressing environmental justice concerns. The non-
profit organization made the following assertions regarding the
contamination at the site:
     Data from a 2016 report suggested that an ecological risk
exists in Bear Creek, warranting remediation.
     A decrease in total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH)
concentrations with increasing distance from Sparrows Creek suggested
that Sparrows Point influences PAH concentrations in that area.
     Bear Creek contains elevated metals concentrations
including chromium, zinc, copper, and cadmium.
     Groundwater to surface water migration should be
considered as a migration route for hazardous substances to Bear Creek
due to the possible migration of contamination that appeared to occur
via this route.
     Offshore concentrations of dissolved constituents
suggested that groundwater fluxes were migrating from onshore source
areas.
     The background levels should be withdrawn because
locations upstream of Sparrows Point were not representative of
background.
     The three background sediment sample locations used in the
HRS evaluation were not representative of background contamination, in
part, due to the tidal influence impacting Bear Creek and the lack of
identification of possible upstream contributors to the contamination.
    Following listing, the EPA will fully investigate the extent of
contamination at the site. A subsequent stage of the Superfund process,
the remedial investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and hazards
at the site more comprehensively. The EPA noted in the HRS
documentation record at proposal on the cover sheet that ``[t]he NPL
listing focuses solely on the releases to the Surface Water Migration
Pathway into Bear Creek via Tin Mill Canal.'' This same page of the HRS
documentation record at proposal explains the rationale for why the
ground migration pathway was not scored, indicating that it is not a
pathway of concern because ground water was not used as drinking water
within four miles of the site source (i.e., the Tin Mill Canal).
    The background levels and background sample locations presented in
the HRS documentation record at proposal were appropriate for HRS
scoring purposes. For HRS scoring, background samples are used to
establish whether a release of contamination has occurred. The
background sample locations are only used as a reference point to
establish that a significant increase in contaminant levels in the
downstream samples has occurred. Ideally, background samples are
collected from an area outside of the influence of the contamination
being evaluated, but with similar physical conditions. Accordingly, the
area outside of the influence of the contamination used to represent
background levels for HRS evaluation purposes may not necessarily
coincide with natural background levels. For this site, samples from
background locations upgradient of the contaminated samples ``were used
to establish background conditions and chemical compositions of the
sediment materials upstream of the discharge point of [Tin Mill
Canal].'' Hence, the background level determination was consistent with
the HRS and the site as preliminary defined for HRS scoring purposes
(i.e., releases to Bear Creek from the Tin Mill Canal).
    Many sites on the NPL are located in environmental justice,
minority and/or low-income communities. Through the cleanup of these
sites, the Superfund program has sought to ensure that residents do not
bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental
consequences resulting from past industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations, and that they have meaningful involvement in the
decisions on how to clean up the site. Furthermore, as the site moves
through the Superfund process, EPA will develop a community relations
plan to ensure public involvement and participation in the cleanup.

C. Clarification of Figure for Meeker Avenue Plume Site

    The EPA is providing a clarification to Figure 8 in the HRS
Documentation Record for the Meeker Avenue Plume site. This figure
provides the location of possible originating facilities of subsurface
contamination. Figure 8 has been modified to include the Empire State
Varnish Company located at 38

Varick Street. The Empire State Varnish Company was identified as a
possible originating facility in the supporting reference materials
that provide the basis for Figure 8, but it was inadvertently omitted
from that figure at proposal. EPA also notes that the facility was
sufficiently identified as within the area of subsurface contamination
as described in Figure 8 in the HRS documentation record at proposal.
EPA is providing this clarification here to reflect that the facility
is a possible originating facility of subsurface contamination at the
Meeker Avenue Plume site.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection
requirements that require approval of the OMB.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. 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, state, local or tribal
governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise
out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a
site on the NPL.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    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.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. 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 action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in
nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide
protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future
regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health
and safety risks.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in
Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of
national priorities. 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 as it does not assign liability to
any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

L. Congressional Review Act

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
    Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of
CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation. 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.

Barry N. Breen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency
Management.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
300, of the Code of Federal Regulations 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. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; 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 by:
0
a. In Table 1, adding entries for ``GA,'' ``Westside Lead'', ``IN,''
``North 5th Street Groundwater Contamination'', ``MA,'' ``Lower
Neponset River'', ``MD,'' ``Bear Creek Sediments'', ``MI,'' ``Michner
Plating--Mechanic Street'', ``MN,'' ``Southeast Hennepin Area
Groundwater and Vapor'', ``NY,'' ``Meeker Avenue Plume'', ``SC,''
``Galey and Lord Plant'', ``TN,'' ``National Fireworks'', ``WI,''
``Unity Auto Mart'', and ``WV,'' ``Paden City Groundwater'' in
alphabetical order by state; and
0
b. In Table 2, adding the entry for ``OR,'' ``Bradford Island'' in
alphabetical order by state.
    The additions read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                                       Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            State                        Site name                 City/county                 Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
GA...........................  Westside Lead...............  Atlanta................

                                                  * * * * * * *
IN...........................  North 5th Street Groundwater  Goshen.................
                                Contamination.

                                                  * * * * * * *
MA...........................  Lower Neponset River........  Boston/Milton..........

                                                  * * * * * * *
MD...........................  Bear Creek Sediments........  Baltimore County.......

                                                  * * * * * * *
MI...........................  Michner Plating--Mechanic     Jackson................
                                Street.

                                                  * * * * * * *
MN...........................  Southeast Hennepin Area       Minneapolis............
                                Groundwater and Vapor.

                                                  * * * * * * *
NY...........................  Meeker Avenue Plume.........  Brooklyn...............

                                                  * * * * * * *
SC...........................  Galey and Lord Plant........  Society Hill...........

                                                  * * * * * * *
TN...........................  National Fireworks..........  Cordova................

                                                  * * * * * * *
WI...........................  Unity Auto Mart.............  Unity..................

                                                  * * * * * * *
WV...........................  Paden City Groundwater......  Paden City.............

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 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).

* * * * *

                                       Table 2--Federal Facilities Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            State                        Site name                 City/county                 Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
OR...........................  Bradford Island.............  Cascade Locks..........

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 * * * * * * *
\a\ 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).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-05397 Filed 3-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35385-35386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [http://www.gpo.gov/]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15577]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-2407-000]

NGI-Kayenta II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced NGI-Kayenta
II, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426,

in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a
motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 6, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov/. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected] or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 17, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15577 Filed 7-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


species stage year impinged. est entrained. est notes junk junk  99  99  99 junk sucker. spp larvae 1977 0 48364734 # 21950 ( last page)

common. carp larvae 1977 0 4200488 # 21950 ( last page)

minnow. spp larvae 1977 0 1037966 # 21950 ( last page)

drum. spp larvae 1977 0 73321 # 21950 ( last page)

percid. spp larvae 1977 0 204342 # 21950 ( last page)

herring. spp larvae 1977 0 2095906 # 21950 ( last page)

smallmouth. bass larvae 1977 0 1897260 # 21950 ( last page)

crappie. spp larvae 1977 0 404596 # 21950 ( last page)

catfish. spp larvae 1977 0 3879 # 21950 ( last page)

white. bass larvae 1977 0 1442562 # 21950 ( last page)

silver. chub age01 1977 23 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

emerald. shiner age01 1977 1289 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

sauger age01 1977 1825 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

white. bass age01 1977 924 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

bluegill age01 1977 228 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

gizzard. shad age01 1977 31789 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

freshwater. drum age01 1977 7836 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

quillback age01 1977 468 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

skipjack. herring age01 1977 1711 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

white. crappie age01 1977 149 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

common. carp age01 1977 11 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

paddlefish age01 1977 11 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

river. carpsucker age01 1977 23 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

golden. redhorse age01 1977 354 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

channel. catfish age01 1977 194 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

black. crappie age01 1977 23 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

mooneye age01 1977 11 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

longear. sunfish age01 1977 11 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

goldeye age01 1977 11 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

flathead. catfish age01 1977 23 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

unidentified age01 1977 34 NA # 21950, table WCB I, page 26QC black. crappie larvae 1977 0 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

bluegill larvae 1977 0 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

channel. catfish larvae 1977 0 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

emerald. shiner larvae 1977 0 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

freshwater. drum larvae 1977 0 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

gizzard. shad larvae 1977 0 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

golden. redhorse larvae 1977 0 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

goldeye larvae 1977 0 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

longear. sunfish larvae 1977 0 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order) mooneye larvae 1977 0 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

paddlefish larvae 1977 0 0 # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order)

percid. spp age01 1977 11 0 logperch. # 21950, table WCB I, page 26 ( out of order) Data in losses01 worksheet 100% Qced LH data taken from Cardinal, QA/ QC ( 10/ 31/ 01)

Worksheet Description Data Source losses01 Reported impingement & entrainment losses at Beckjord Note: annual impingement rates were calculated by dividing the # collected by 32 sampling days and multiplying by 365 days per year. This was done on page 41 of # 21950 for selected species.

lifehistory02 Life history data for speicies impinged/ entrained lbs. from. mm03 Conversion factor ( lbs to mm) for each species species. growth04 Average growth per species per life stage fecundity05 Fecundity of each species Additional Notes losses01 Assumed age01 for all species for impingement.

J. Hazen, 12/ 18/ 01  Changed all NA's back to 0 with exception of entrainment " unknown". Due to conversation with D. Cacela indicating that use of NA due to an identified unknown or other component is incorrect. Input data for I& E loss at Beckjord Power Station Workbook compiled for use in fish impingement/ entainment loss model. Amy Beaulieu, 6/ 13/ 01 and Adrienne Gret 03/ 09/ 01


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25645]
[FR Doc No: E9-12435]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Amendment No. 25-128]

Transport Category Airplanes, Various Technical Amendments and
Corrections

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This amendment corrects a number of errors in the safety
standards for transport category airplanes. None of the changes are
substantive in nature, and this amendment will not impose any
additional burdens on any person affected by these regulations.

DATES: Effective Date: This amendment becomes effective May 29, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this final rule, contact: Jeff Gardlin, FAA Airframe and Cabin Safety
Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 227-2136; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
For legal questions concerning this final rule, contact: Douglas
Anderson, ANM-7, FAA, Office of Regional Counsel, 1601 Lind Ave. SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356 telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A number of unrelated errors in the safety standards for transport
category airplanes have been brought to the attention of the FAA. Some
are due to inadvertent omissions or other editing errors; others are
simply typographical or printing errors. This document amends part 25
to correct those errors. None of the corrections are substantive in
nature, and this amendment will not impose any additional burdens on
any person affected by these regulations.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Airplanes, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the following, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends part 25 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation of part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.

Sec.  25.812  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  25.812(h), introductory text, by removing the phrase
``Sec. Sec.  25.810(a) and (d)'' and adding the phrase ``Sec. Sec.
25.810(a)(1) and (d)'' in its place.

Sec.  25.813  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  25.813(b)(5) by removing the phrase ``Sec.
25.807(d)(3)(ii)'' and adding the phrase ``Sec.  25.807(g)(9)(ii)'' in
its place.

Appendix F to Part 25 [Amended]

0
4. Amend Appendix F, part VII, paragraph (f)(1), by removing the phrase
``paragraph (c)(4) or (c)(4)(i)'' and adding the phrase ``paragraph
(c)(3)(iv)'' in its place.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22, 2009.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-12435 Filed 5-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22436-22438]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10342]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0152; FRL-9978-09-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Delaware. This revision pertains to the infrastructure
requirement for interstate transport of pollution with respect to the
2012 fine

particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). EPA is proposing approval of this revision in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0152 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Schulingkamp,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 14, 2015, the State of Delaware,
through the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
(DNREC) submitted a SIP revision addressing the infrastructure
requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. On September 22, 2017, EPA approved all
portions of Delaware's submittal except for the portion addressing
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding the interstate transport of
emissions. See 82 FR 44318. As explained in the final rule, EPA
intended to take separate action on that portion of Delaware's
submittal and is doing so with today's proposed action.

I. Background

A. General

    Particle pollution is a complex mixture of extremely small
particles and liquid droplets in the air. When inhaled, these particles
can reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to particle
pollution is linked to a variety of significant health problems.
Particle pollution also is the main cause of visibility impairment in
the nation's cities and national parks. PM2.5 can be emitted
directly into the atmosphere, or it can form from chemical reactions of
precursor gases including sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), certain volatile organic compounds (VOC), and
ammonia. On January 15, 2013, EPA revised the level of the health based
(primary) annual PM2.5 standard to 12 micrograms per meter
cubed ([micro]g/m\3\). See 78 FR 3086.

B. EPA's Infrastructure Requirements

    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to
submit a SIP revision to address the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS--such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances of each NAAQS and what
is in each state's existing SIP. In particular, the data and analytical
tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP
revision for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the
submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending
upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.
    Specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific
elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements
related to a newly established or revised NAAQS such as requirements
for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that
are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

C. Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a state's SIP to
address any emissions activity in one state that contributes
significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in any downwind state. The EPA sometimes refers to these
requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and
prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or jointly as the ``good
neighbor'' provision of the CAA. On March 17, 2016, EPA issued a
memorandum providing information on the development and review of SIPs
that address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS (2016 PM2.5 Memorandum).\1\ Further information can be
found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking
action, which is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number
EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor''
Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (March 17, 2016). A copy is included in the
docket for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revisions and EPA Analysis

    Delaware's December 14, 2015 SIP submittal asserted that the
State's SIP presently contains adequate provisions prohibiting sources
from emitting air pollutants in amounts which will contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Delaware also asserted under Delaware
Code, Title 7, Chapter 60, Subsection 6010(c), ``Rules and regulations;
plans,'' that the State has the legal authority to regulate sources
whose emission could transport to areas in nonattainment or to areas
currently attaining the NAAQS. Delaware also describes ambient air
quality data for New Castle, Kent, and Sussex Counties as all being
below the NAAQS. A detailed summary of Delaware's submittal and EPA's
review and rationale for approval of this SIP revision as meeting CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS may be
found in the TSD for this rulemaking action, which is available online
at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0152.
    EPA used the information in the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum
and additional information for the evaluation and came to the same
conclusion as Delaware. As

discussed in greater detail in the TSD, EPA identified the potential
downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in the 2016
PM2.5 Memorandum, and then evaluated them to determine if
Delaware's emissions could potentially contribute to nonattainment and
maintenance problems in 2021, the attainment year for moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Specifically, the analysis
identified the following areas as potential nonattainment and
maintenance receptors: (i) 17 potential receptors in California; (ii)
one potential receptor in Shoshone County, Idaho; (iii) one potential
receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (iv) data gaps exist for
the monitors in four counties in Florida; and (v) data gaps exist for
all monitors in Illinois. For the 17 receptors in California and one
potential receptor in Idaho, based on EPA's evaluation of distance and
wind direction, EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware's emissions do
not significantly impact those receptors. For the potential receptor in
Allegheny County, EPA expects the air quality affecting that monitor to
improve to the point where the monitor will not be a nonattainment or
maintenance receptor by 2021 and is therefore unlikely to be a receptor
for purposes of interstate transport. For the four counties in Florida
and the monitors in Illinois with data gaps, EPA initially treats those
receptors as potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors. For the
Florida receptors, it is unlikely that they will be nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in 2021 and in any event, modeling from the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) indicates that Delaware's
emissions do not contribute to them. For the monitors in Illinois, the
most recent air quality data (from 2015 and 2016) indicates that all
monitors are likely attaining the PM2.5 NAAQs and are
therefore unlikely to be nonattainment or maintenance concerns in 2021.
Therefore, EPA proposes to conclude that Delaware emissions will not
contribute to any of these receptors. For these reasons, EPA is
proposing to find that Delaware's existing SIP provisions as identified
in the December 14, 2015 SIP submittal are adequate to prevent its
emission sources from significantly contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with maintenance in another state with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the December 14, 2015 Delaware SIP
revision addressing the interstate transport requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS because the submittal adequately addresses
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule, addressing the 2012 PM2.5
interstate transport obligations for Delaware, does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 1, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-10342 Filed 5-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 18789]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06759]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0087; FRL-9706-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Benzene Waste Operations
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Benzene Waste
Operations (EPA ICR Number 1541.13, OMB Control Number 2060-0183), to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31,
2022. Public comments were previously requested, via the Federal
Register, on April 13, 2021 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0087, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method)
or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 2821T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
https://www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Benzene Waste Operations (40 CFR part 61,
subpart FF) apply to existing facilities and new facilities that
generate waste containing benzene, such as chemical manufacturing
plants, coke by-product recovery plants, petroleum refineries, and
those owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDF) that receive wastes from the above
facilities. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial
notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/
operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of benzene
waste facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 61,
subpart FF).
    Estimated number of respondents: 270 (total).
    Frequency of response: Quarterly and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 19,500 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,310,000 (per year), which includes $0 in
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in burden from the
most-recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB Inventory
of Approved Burdens. This situation is due to two considerations: (1)
The regulations have not changed over the past three years and are not
anticipated to change over the next three years; and (2) based on a
review of EPA's Toxics Release Inventory that supports the existing
estimated number of respondents, the growth rate for this industry is
very low or non-existent. Since there are no changes in the regulatory
requirements and there is no significant industry growth, there is no
significant change in the overall burden and there are also no changes
in the capital/startup and/or operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
There is a slight increase in costs, which is wholly due to the use of
updated labor rates. This ICR uses labor rates from the most-recent
Bureau of Labor Statistics report (September 2020) to calculate
respondent burden costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-06759 Filed 3-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Acetochlor sales have been reported for the following states:

Alabama (AL)      Maine (ME)           Oklahoma (OK)
Arkansas (AR)     Massachusetts (MA)   Oregon (OR)
California (CA)   Michigan (MI)        Pennsylvania (PA)
Colorado (CO)     Minnesota (MN)       Rhode Island (RI)
Connecticut (CT)  Missouri (MO)        South Carolina (SC)
Delaware (DE)     Mississippi (MS)     South Dakota (SD)
Georgia (GA)      Montana (MT)         Tennessee (TN)
Iowa (IA)         North Carolina (NC)  Texas (TX)
Idaho (ID)        North Dakota (ND)    Utah (UT)
Illinois (IL)     Nebraska (NE)        Virginia (VA)
Indiana (IN)      New Hampshire (NH)   Vermont (VT)
Kansas (KS)       New Jersey (NJ)      Washington (WA)
Kentucky (KY)     New Mexico (NM)      Wisconsin (WI)
Louisiana (LA)    New York (NY)        West Virginia (WV)
Maryland (MD)     Ohio (OH)            Wyoming (WY)

The remaining states for which there have been no acetochlor sales
include:

Alaska (AK)
Arizona (AZ)
Florida (FL)
Hawaii (HI)
Nevada (NV)