[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55299-55305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19148]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0455 and 0463, OLEM-2022-0190, 0192, and 0193; FRL-
10159-01-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 five sites to the General Superfund section 
of the NPL.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 11, 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: (202) 566-1048, 
email: [email protected], Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch, 
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation 
and Technology Innovation (Mail code 5204T), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    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, 
4 Penn Center, 1600 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Mailcode 3SD12, 
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.
     David Fronczak, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. 
EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8SEM-EM-P, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 
(303) 312-6096.
     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, 288 
Martin Street, Suite 309, Blaine, WA 98230; (360) 366-8868.

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. Correction of Site Name Spelling Error in Appendix B
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.

[[Page 55300]]

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,

[[Page 55301]]

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.

[[Page 55302]]

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgetown North Groundwater.........  Georgetown, DE.........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0190.
Highway 3 PCE........................  Le Mars, IA............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0455.
Lower Hackensack River...............  Bergen and Hudson        EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0192.
                                        Counties, NJ.
Brillo Landfill......................  Victory, NY............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2022-0193.
Ochoa Fertilizer Co..................  Gu[aacute]nica, PR.....  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0463.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. These documents are also available online at 
https://www.regulations.gov.

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 that support this rule online at https://www.regulations.gov or by contacting the EPA HQ docket or appropriate 
regional docket. 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 individual 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.

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Additions to the NPL

    This final rule adds the following five sites to the NPL, all to 
the General Superfund 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE.....................  Georgetown North         Georgetown.
                          Groundwater.
IA.....................  Highway 3 PCE..........  Le Mars.
NJ.....................  Lower Hackensack River.  Bergen and Hudson
                                                   Counties.
NY.....................  Brillo Landfill........  Victory.
PR.....................  Ochoa Fertilizer Co....  Gu[aacute]nica.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 five sites to 
the NPL in this final rule. The Ochoa Fertilizer Co site in 
Gu[aacute]nica, PR was proposed for addition to the NPL on September 9, 
2021 (86 FR 50515). The remaining four sites were proposed for addition 
to the NPL on March 18, 2022 (87 FR 15349).
    Comments on the Ochoa Fertilizer Co site are being addressed in a 
response to comment support document available in the public docket 
concurrently with this rule. To view public comments on this site, as 
well as EPA's response, please refer to the support document available 
at https://www.regulations.gov. Below is a summary of significant 
comments received on the remaining sites.
    The EPA received no comments on the Highway 3 PCE site.
Georgetown North Groundwater
    The EPA received one comment supporting the listing of the 
Georgetown North Groundwater site, one comment requesting additional 
information, and one additional comment that is not site-specific to 
the Georgetown North Groundwater site. In support of listing, a private 
citizen expressed approval of the potential for help from the EPA to 
address groundwater contamination and to keep residential water as 
clean as possible. This commenter also requested that the EPA 
investigate possible contamination from a previous dry cleaner in the 
area and ensure that structures near the facility are included in the 
remediation.
    One commenter, a private citizen, supported listing all five sites 
proposed on March 18, 2022 (87 FR 15349) and expressed support for the 
positive attributes of listing including the economic benefits, the 
protection of human health and the environment, and the positive impact 
to the environment. The commenter also submitted comments related to 
taxation and considerations for funding Superfund cleanups in general.
    The third commenter, a private citizen, did not oppose listing but 
expressed concern regarding the groundwater contamination and requested 
information about testing. The EPA has reached out to this individual

[[Page 55303]]

directly to provide further information regarding the scope of the 
site.
    Regarding possible contamination associated with a former dry 
cleaner in the area, listing makes a site eligible for remedial action 
funding under CERCLA, and the EPA will examine the site to determine 
what response, if any, is appropriate. Placing a site on the NPL is 
based on an evaluation, in accordance with the HRS, of a release or 
threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 
contaminants. This site was evaluated as a groundwater plume with no 
identified source due to the inability to identify the origin of the 
likely commingled groundwater contamination. As explained in the 
attribution section of the HRS documentation record at proposal, 
possible sources of the likely commingled contamination include dry-
cleaning facilities with noted PCE contamination as well as other 
facilities. A subsequent stage of the Superfund process, the remedial 
investigation (RI), characterizes conditions and hazards at the site 
more comprehensively. However, if another, unrelated area of 
contamination is discovered during the RI, the EPA may decide to 
evaluate that release for possible placement on the NPL.
Lower Hackensack River
    The EPA received three comments supporting the proposed listing of 
the Lower Hackensack River site. The EPA received one additional 
comment that is not site-specific but supported listing all five sites 
proposed on March 18, 2022 (87 FR 15349) to ensure transparency about 
the public health of the community.
    Two organizations, the Hackensack Riverkeeper and the NY/NJ 
Baykeeper, supported listing the site on the NPL. New Jersey State 
Senator Gordon Johnson, New Jersey State Assemblywoman Shama Haider, 
and New Jersey State Assemblywoman Ellen Park also submitted a joint 
comment as the legislators representing the 37th district of New Jersey 
in support of the proposed listing of the site on the NPL. The 
Hackensack Riverkeeper commented that listing will allow the river to 
receive attention from the EPA and address contamination resulting from 
multiple possible sources. The Hackensack Riverkeeper asserted that 
contaminated sediments in the river will likely remain until the 
Superfund remediation occurs. In support of placing the site on the 
NPL, the NY/NJ Baykeeper asserted that listing the site on the NPL 
allows for a more comprehensive approach to remediation of the site and 
allows the EPA to complete widespread remediation. The NY/NJ Baykeeper 
also commented that opportunities should be made available for 
community involvement and engagement. The legislators representing the 
37th district in New Jersey provided support for the proposed listing, 
and they commented that taxpayers in the 37th district should not be 
responsible for funding cleanup and parties at fault should be held 
responsible.
    Regarding concern for the impact of site listing on remedial 
activities and the attendant costs, the inclusion of a site on the NPL 
does not cause the EPA, or a private party, to undertake remedial 
action, nor does it assign liability for site response costs (56 FR 
21462, May 9, 1991). Any EPA actions that may impose costs are based on 
discretionary decisions and are made on a case-by-case basis. 
Responsible parties may bear some or all the costs of the remedial 
investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) and subsequent work, or the 
costs may be shared by the EPA and the States. The EPA has not 
allocated costs for this site at this time.
    Regarding community involvement, the Superfund program offers 
numerous opportunities for public participation at NPL sites. The EPA 
Regional Office develops a Community Relations Plan (CRP) before RI/FS 
field work begins. Typical community relations activities include:
     Public meetings at which the EPA presents a summary of 
technical information regarding the site and citizens can ask questions 
or comment.
     Small, informal public sessions at which EPA 
representatives are available to citizens.
     Development and distribution of fact sheets to keep 
citizens up-to-date on site activities.
    For each site, an ``information repository'' is established, 
usually in a library or town hall and/or on an EPA website, containing 
reports, studies, fact sheets, and other documents containing 
information about the site. After the RI/FS is completed and the EPA 
has recommended a preferred cleanup alternative, the EPA Regional 
Office sends to all interested parties a Proposed Plan outlining the 
cleanup alternatives studied and explaining the process for selection 
of the preferred alternative. At this time, the EPA also begins a 
public comment period during which citizens are encouraged to submit 
comments regarding all alternatives. Once the public comment period 
ends, the EPA develops a Responsiveness Summary, which contains EPA 
responses to public comments. In addition to meeting these specific 
Federal requirements, the EPA makes every attempt to ensure that 
community relations is a continuing activity designed to meet the 
specific needs of the community. Anyone wanting information on a 
specific site should contact the Community Relations staff in the 
appropriate EPA Regional Office.
Brillo Landfill
    The EPA received one comment from a private citizen on the proposed 
listing of the Brillo Landfill site that is not site-specific but 
supported the implementation of the NCP. The commenter expressed 
support for the proposed rule noting that the rule change is in a 
positive direction for protecting the environment from pollutants.

C. Correction of Site Name Spelling Error in Appendix B

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 
553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that 
notice and public procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or 
contrary to the public interest, the Agency may issue a final rule or 
technical amendment without providing notice and an opportunity for 
public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making 
this technical amendment final without prior proposal and opportunity 
for comment because such notice and opportunity for comment is 
unnecessary for the following reason. EPA is merely correcting the name 
of the site Douglass Road/Uniroyal, Inc., Landfill to Douglas Road/
Uniroyal, Inc., Landfill. This minor technical correction is simply 
administrative and does not affect any substantive requirements. EPA 
finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

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.

[[Page 55304]]

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.

    Date: August 29, 2022.
Barry 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,

[[Page 55305]]

3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 
Comp., p. 193.


0
2. In appendix B of part 300 amend Table 1 by:
0
a. Removing the ``IN, Douglass Road/Uniroyal, Inc., Landfill'' entry 
under the state of Indiana; and
0
b. Adding entries for ``DE, Georgetown North Groundwater'', ``IA, 
Highway 3 PCE'', ``IN, Douglas Road/Uniroyal, Inc., Landfill'', ``NJ, 
Lower Hackensack River'', ``NY, Brillo Landfill'', and ``PR, Ochoa 
Fertilizer Co'' in alphabetical order by state to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                                       Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             State                      Site name                 City/county                 Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
DE............................  Georgetown North           Georgetown..............
                                 Groundwater.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
IA............................  Highway 3 PCE............  Le Mars.................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
IN............................  Douglas Road/Uniroyal,     Mishawaka...............
                                 Inc., Landfill.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
NJ............................  Lower Hackensack River...  Bergen and Hudson
                                                            Counties.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
NY............................  Brillo Landfill..........  Victory.................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
PR............................  Ochoa Fertilizer Co......  Gu[aacute]nica..........
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. 2022-19148 Filed 9-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


