National Priorities List, 20277-20283 [2016-07671]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
20277
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Dated: March 28, 2016.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 258, Criteria for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 258—CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
1. The authority citation continues to
read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42
U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c)
and 6949a(c), 6981(a).
Subpart F—Closure and Post-Closure
Care
2. Section 258.62 is amended by
adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 258.62 Approval of site-specific flexibility
requests in Indian Country.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Picacho Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill—Alternative list of detection
monitoring parameters and alternative
final cover. This paragraph (b) applies to
the Picacho Landfill, a Municipal Solid
Waste landfill operated by Imperial
County on the Quechan Indian Tribe of
the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation in
California.
(1) In accordance with 40 CFR
258.54(a), the owner and operator may
modify the list of heavy metal detection
monitoring parameters specified in 40
CFR 258, Appendix I, as required during
Post-Closure Care by 40 CFR
258.61(a)(3), by replacing monitoring of
the inorganic constituents with the
exception of arsenic, with the inorganic
indicator parameters chloride, nitrate as
nitrogen, sulfate, and total dissolved
solids.
(2) In accordance with 40 CFR
258.60(b), the owner and operator may
replace the prescriptive final cover set
forth in 40 CFR 258.60(a), with an
alternative final cover as follows:
(i) The owner and operator may
install an evapotranspiration cover
system as an alternative final cover for
the 12.5 acre site.
(ii) The alternative final cover system
shall be constructed to achieve an
equivalent reduction in infiltration as
the infiltration layer specified in
§ 258.60(a)(1) and (2), and provide an
equivalent protection from wind and
water erosion as the erosion layer
specified in § 258.60(a)(3).
(iii) The final cover system shall
consist of a minimum three-feet-thick
multi-layer cover system comprised,
from bottom to top, of:
(A) A minimum 30-inch thick
infiltration layer consisting of:
(1) Existing intermediate cover; and
(2) additional cover soil which, prior
to placement, shall be wetted to optimal
moisture as determined by ASTM D
1557 and thoroughly mixed to near
uniform condition, and the material
shall then be placed in lifts with an
uncompacted thickness of six to eight
inches, spread evenly and compacted to
90 percent of the maximum dry density
as determined by ASMT D 1557, and
shall:
(i) Exhibit a grain size distribution
that excludes particles in excess of three
inches in diameter;
(ii) have a minimum fines content
(percent by weight passing U.S. No. 200
Sieve) of seven percent for an individual
test and eight percent for the average of
ten consecutive tests;
(iii) have a grain size distribution with
a minimum of five percent finer than
five microns for an individual test and
six percent for the average of ten
consecutive tests; and
(iv) exhibit a maximum saturated
hydraulic conductivity on the order of
1.0E–03 cm/sec.; and
(3) a minimum six-inch surface
erosion layer comprised of a rock/soil
admixture. The surface erosion layer
admixture and gradations for 3% slopes
and 3:1 slopes are detailed below:
(i) 3% slopes: For the 3% slopes the
surface admixture shall be composed of
pea gravel (3⁄8-inch to 1⁄2-inch diameter)
mixed with cover soil at the ratio of
25% rock to soil by volume with a
minimum six-inch erosion layer.
(ii) For the 3:1 side slopes the surface
admixture shall be composed of either:
gravel/rock (3⁄4-inch to one-inch
diameter) mixed with additional cover
soil as described in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section at the
ratio of 50% rock to soil by volume and
result in a minimum six-inch erosion
layer, or gravel/rock (3⁄4-inch to twoinch diameter) mixed with additional
cover soil as described in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii)(A)(2) of this section at the
ratio of 50% rock to soil by volume and
result in a minimum 12-inch erosion
layer.
(iii) The owner and operator shall
place documentation demonstrating
compliance with the provisions of this
Section in the operating record.
(iv) All other applicable provisions of
40 CFR part 258 remain in effect.
[FR Doc. 2016–07996 Filed 4–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1994–0002; EPA–HQ–
OLEM–2016–0151, 0152, 0153, 0154, 0155,
0156, 0157 and 0158; FRL–9944–35–OLEM]
National Priorities List
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(‘‘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
(‘‘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 rulemaking proposes
to add eight sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL. This
proposed rule also withdraws a
previous proposal to add a site to the
NPL.
SUMMARY:
Comments regarding any of these
proposed listings must be submitted
(postmarked) on or before June 6, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate
docket number from the table below.
DATES:
DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE
Site name
City/county, state
Docket ID No.
Argonaut Mine ................................................................
Bonita Peak Mining District ............................................
Riverside Ground Water Contamination ........................
Jackson, CA ...................................................................
San Juan County, CO ....................................................
Indianapolis, IN ..............................................................
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0151
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0152
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0153
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Apr 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
20278
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE—Continued
City/county, state
Docket ID No.
Valley Pike VOCs ...........................................................
Wappinger Creek ............................................................
Dorado Ground Water Contamination ............................
Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc. ..........................................
North 25th Street Glass and Zinc ..................................
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Site name
Riverside, OH .................................................................
Dutchess County, NY ....................................................
Dorado, PR ....................................................................
Live Oak, TX ..................................................................
Clarksburg, WV ..............................................................
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0154
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0155
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0156
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0157
EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0158
Submit your comments, identified by
the appropriate docket number, at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. For additional
docket addresses and further details on
their contents, see section II, ‘‘Public
Review/Public Comment,’’ of the
Supplementary Information portion of
this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603–8852,
email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site
Assessment and Remedy Decisions
Branch, Assessment and Remediation
Division, Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology
Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline,
phone (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412–
9810 in the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
B. What is the NCP?
C. What is the National Priorities List
(NPL)?
D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Apr 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
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. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I review the documents relevant to
this proposed rule?
B. How do I access the documents?
C. What documents are available for public
review at the EPA Headquarters docket?
D. What documents are available for public
review at the EPA regional dockets?
E. How do I submit my comments?
F. What happens to my comments?
G. What should I consider when preparing
my comments?
H. May I submit comments after the public
comment period is over?
I. May I view public comments submitted
by others?
J. May I submit comments regarding sites
not currently proposed to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the
NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Background
A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
In 1980, Congress enacted the
Comprehensive Environmental
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
only of limited significance, however, as
it does not assign liability to any party
or to the owner of any specific property.
Also, placing a site on the NPL does not
mean that any remedial or removal
action necessarily need be taken.
For purposes of listing, the NPL
includes two sections, one of sites that
are generally evaluated and cleaned up
by the EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund
section’’), and one of sites that are
owned or operated by other federal
agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities
section’’). With respect to sites in the
Federal Facilities section, these sites are
generally being addressed by other
federal agencies. Under Executive Order
12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987)
and CERCLA section 120, each federal
agency is responsible for carrying out
most response actions at facilities under
its own jurisdiction, custody or control,
although the EPA is responsible for
preparing a Hazard Ranking System
(‘‘HRS’’) score and determining whether
the facility is placed on the NPL.
D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
There are three mechanisms for
placing sites on the NPL for possible
remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c)
of the NCP):
(1) A site may be included on the NPL
if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS,
which the EPA promulgated as
appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part
300). The HRS serves as a screening tool
to evaluate the relative potential of
uncontrolled hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants to pose a
threat to human health or the
environment. On December 14, 1990 (55
FR 51532), the EPA promulgated
revisions to the HRS partly in response
to CERCLA section 105(c), added by
SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four
pathways: Ground water, surface water,
soil exposure and air. As a matter of
agency policy, those sites that score
28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible
for the NPL.
(2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
9605(a)(8)(B), each state may designate
a single site as its top priority to be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Apr 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 permanent remedy,
taken instead of or in addition to
removal actions. * * *’’ 42 U.S.C.
9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR
300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL
‘‘does not imply that monies will be
expended.’’ The EPA may pursue other
appropriate authorities to respond to the
releases, including enforcement action
under CERCLA and other laws.
F. Does the NPL define the boundaries
of sites?
The NPL does not describe releases in
precise geographical terms; it would be
neither feasible nor consistent with the
limited purpose of the NPL (to identify
releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the
precise nature and extent of the site are
typically not known at the time of
listing.
Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is
broadly defined to include any area
where a hazardous substance has ‘‘come
to be located’’ (CERCLA section 101(9)),
the listing process itself is not intended
to define or reflect the boundaries of
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20279
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.
The 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
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
20280
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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 Superfundfinanced 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.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Apr 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no
legal significance.
Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1)
Any necessary physical construction is
complete, whether or not final cleanup
levels or other requirements have been
achieved; (2) the EPA has determined
that the response action should be
limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional
controls); or (3) the site qualifies for
deletion from the NPL. For the most upto-date information on the CCL, see the
EPA’s Internet site at https://
www.epa.gov/superfund/aboutsuperfund-cleanup-process#tab-6.
J. What is the Sitewide Ready for
Anticipated Use measure?
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated
Use measure (formerly called Sitewide
Ready-for-Reuse) 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-forReuse 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#tab-9.
K. What is state/tribal correspondence
concerning NPL listing?
In order to maintain close
coordination with states and tribes in
the NPL listing decision process, the
EPA’s policy is to determine the
position of the states and tribes
regarding sites that the EPA is
considering for listing. This
consultation process is outlined in two
memoranda that can be found at the
following Web site: https://
www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribalcorrespondence-concerning-npl-sitelisting.
The EPA is improving 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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
address the site if placement on the NPL
is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the
transparent nature of the process by
informing states that information on
their responses will be publicly
available.
A model letter and correspondence
from this point forward between the
EPA and states and tribes where
applicable, is available on the EPA’s
Web site at https://www.epa.gov/
superfund/statetribal-correspondenceconcerning-npl-site-listing.
II. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I review the documents relevant
to this proposed rule?
Yes, documents that form the basis for
the EPA’s evaluation and scoring of the
sites in this proposed rule are contained
in public dockets located both at the
EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC,
and in the regional offices. These
documents are also available by
electronic access at https://
www.regulations.gov (see instructions in
the ADDRESSES section above).
B. How do I access the documents?
You may view the documents, by
appointment only, in the Headquarters
or the regional dockets after the
publication of this proposed 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.
The following is the contact
information for the EPA Headquarters
Docket: 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. (Please note this
is a visiting address only. Mail
comments to the EPA Headquarters as
detailed at the beginning of this
preamble.)
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.
• Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY,
PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007–1866; 212/637–4344.
• Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE,
DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode
3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/
814–3355.
• Jennifer Wendel, Region 4 (AL, FL,
GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
20281
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Forsyth Street, SW., Mailcode 9T25,
Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562–8799.
• Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI,
MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund
Division Librarian/SFD Records
Manager SRC–7J, Metcalfe Federal
Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886–4465.
• Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA,
NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS,
Dallas, TX 75202–2733; 214/665–7436.
• Preston Law, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO,
NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd.,
Mailcode SUPRERNB, Lenexa, KS
66219; 913/551–7097.
• Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT,
ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B,
Denver, CO 80202–1129; 303/312–6484.
• Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA,
HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6–1,
San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/947–
4250.
• Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR,
WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue,
Mailcode ECL–112, Seattle, WA 98101;
206/463–1349.
You may also request copies from the
EPA Headquarters or the regional
dockets. An informal request, rather
than a formal written request under the
Freedom of Information Act, should be
the ordinary procedure for obtaining
copies of any of these documents. Please
note that due to the difficulty of
reproducing oversized maps, oversized
maps may be viewed only in-person;
since the EPA dockets are not equipped
to both copy and mail out such maps or
scan them and send them out
electronically.
You may use the docket at https://
www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters docket
(see instructions included in the
ADDRESSES section). Please note that
there are differences between the
Headquarters docket and the regional
dockets and those differences are
outlined in this preamble, Sections II.C
and D.
C. What documents are available for
public review at the EPA Headquarters
docket?
The Headquarters docket for this
proposed rule contains the following for
the sites proposed in this rule: HRS
score sheets; documentation records
describing the information used to
compute the score; information for any
sites affected by particular statutory
requirements or the EPA listing policies;
and a list of documents referenced in
the documentation record.
D. What documents are available for
public review at the EPA regional
dockets?
The regional dockets for this proposed
rule contain all of the information in the
Headquarters docket plus the actual
reference documents containing the data
principally relied upon and cited by the
EPA in calculating or evaluating the
HRS score for the sites. These reference
documents are available only in the
regional dockets.
E. How do I submit my comments?
Comments must be submitted to the
EPA Headquarters as detailed at the
beginning of this preamble in the
ADDRESSES section. Please note that the
mailing addresses differ according to
method of delivery. There are two
different addresses that depend on
whether comments are sent by express
mail or by postal mail.
F. What happens to my comments?
The EPA considers all comments
received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically
addressed in a support document that
the EPA will publish concurrently with
the Federal Register document if, and
when, the site is listed on the NPL.
G. What should I consider when
preparing my comments?
Comments that include complex or
voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS
scoring, should point out the specific
information that the EPA should
consider and how it affects individual
HRS factor values or other listing
criteria (Northside Sanitary Landfill v.
Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir.
1988)). The EPA will not address
voluminous comments that are not
referenced to the HRS or other listing
criteria. The EPA will not address
comments unless they indicate which
component of the HRS documentation
record or what particular point in the
EPA’s stated eligibility criteria is at
issue.
H. May I submit comments after the
public comment period is over?
Generally, the EPA will not respond
to late comments. The EPA can
guarantee only that it will consider
those comments postmarked by the
close of the formal comment period. The
EPA has a policy of generally not
delaying a final listing decision solely to
accommodate consideration of late
comments.
I. May I view public comments
submitted by others?
During the comment period,
comments are placed in the
Headquarters docket and are available to
the public on an ‘‘as received’’ basis. A
complete set of comments will be
available for viewing in the regional
dockets approximately one week after
the formal comment period closes.
All public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper
form, will be made available for public
viewing in the electronic public docket
at https://www.regulations.gov as the
EPA receives them and without change,
unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential
business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Once in the public
dockets system, select ‘‘search,’’ then
key in the appropriate docket ID
number.
J. May I submit comments regarding
sites not currently proposed to the NPL?
In certain instances, interested parties
have written to the EPA concerning sites
that were not at that time proposed to
the NPL. If those sites are later proposed
to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate,
resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal
comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the
period of formal proposal and comment
will not generally be included in the
docket.
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
In this proposed rule, the EPA is
proposing to add eight sites to the NPL,
all to the General Superfund section. All
of the sites in this proposed rulemaking
are being proposed based on HRS scores
of 28.50 or above.
The sites are presented in the table
below.
GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION
State
Site name
CA ...........................................
Argonaut Mine .........................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Apr 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
City/County
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Jackson.
20282
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION—Continued
State
Site name
CO ..........................................
IN ............................................
OH ..........................................
NY ...........................................
PR ...........................................
TX ...........................................
WV ..........................................
Bonita Peak Mining District .....................................................................................................
Riverside Ground Water Contamination .................................................................................
Valley Pike VOCs ...................................................................................................................
Wappinger Creek ....................................................................................................................
Dorado Ground Water Contamination ....................................................................................
Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc. ...................................................................................................
North 25th Street Glass and Zinc ...........................................................................................
B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to
the NPL
The EPA is withdrawing its previous
proposal to add the Rickenbacker Air
National Guard Base site in Lockbourne,
Ohio to the NPL because all appropriate
cleanup actions have been taken at the
site in accordance with its reuse as an
airport. The U.S. Air Force will
continue to provide funding to the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency under
its Defense-State Memorandum of
Agreement (DSMOA) to provide
cleanup oversight and stewardship of
institutional controls in accordance
with state law. The proposed rule can be
found at 59 FR 2568 (January 18, 1994).
Refer to the Docket ID Number EPA–
HQ–SFUND–1994–0002 for supporting
documentation regarding this action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/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. 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.
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Apr 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
City/County
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.
D. 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.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action 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.
F. 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.
G. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
San Juan County.
Indianapolis.
Riverside.
Dutchess County.
Dorado.
Live Oak.
Clarksburg.
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.
H. 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.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. 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.
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
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.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C.
9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3CFR,
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.
Dated: March 28, 2016.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and
Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2016–07671 Filed 4–6–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
45 CFR Part 1355
RIN 0970–AC47
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis
and Reporting System
Administration on Children,
Youth and Families (ACYF),
Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
On February 9, 2015, the
Administration for Children and
Families (ACF) published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend
the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis
and Reporting System (AFCARS)
regulations to modify the requirements
for title IV–E agencies to collect and
report data to ACF on children in outof-home care and who were adopted or
in a legal guardianship with a title IV–
E subsidized adoption or guardianship
agreement. In this supplemental notice
of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM), ACF
proposes to require that state title IV–E
agencies collect and report additional
data elements related to the Indian
Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) in the
AFCARS. ACF will consider the public
comments on this SNPRM as well as
comments already received on the
February 9, 2015 NPRM and issue one
final AFCARS rule.
DATES: Submit written or electronic
comments on this Supplemental Notice
Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Apr 06, 2016
Jkt 238001
of Proposed Rulemaking on or before
May 9, 2016.
ADDRESSES: We encourage the public to
submit comments electronically to
ensure they are received in a timely
manner. Please be sure to include
identifying information on any
correspondence. To download an
electronic version of the proposed rule,
please go to https://www.regulations.
gov/. You may submit comments,
identified by docket number, by any of
the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Written comments may be
submitted to Kathleen McHugh, United
States Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children
and Families, Director, Policy Division,
330 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20024.
• Please be aware that mail sent in
response to this SNPRM may take an
additional 3 to 4 days to process due to
security screening of mail.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: If you
choose to use an express, overnight, or
other special delivery method, please
ensure that the carrier will deliver to the
above address Monday through Friday
during the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
excluding holidays.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will
be posted without change to
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments, see the ‘‘Public
Participation’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Comments that concern information
collection requirements must be sent to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) at the address listed in the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) section
of this preamble. A copy of these
comments also may be sent to the
Department representative listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathleen McHugh, United States
Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children
and Families, Director, Policy Division.
To contact Kathleen McHugh, please
use the following email address:
cbcomments@acf.hhs.gov. Deaf and
hearing impaired individuals may call
the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at
1–800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 7
p.m. Eastern Time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20283
Contents
I. Background
II. Statutory Authority
III. Public Participation
IV. Consultation and Regulation
Development
V. Section-by-Section Discussion of the
SNPRM
VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis
VII. Tribal Consultation Statement
I. Background
Adoption and Foster Care Automated
Reporting System (AFCARS)
Section 479 of the Social Security Act
(the Act) requires that ACF regulate a
national data collection system that
provides comprehensive demographic
and case-specific information on all
children who are in foster care or
adopted with title IV–E agency
involvement (42 U.S.C. 679).
Historically, the broad underlying
legislative directive has always been the
establishment and administration of a
system for ‘‘the collection of data with
respect to adoption and foster care in
the United States.’’ Such data collection
system is the Adoption and Foster Care
Automated Reporting System
(AFCARS).
The AFCARS statute with regard to
data collection systems requires the
following: (1) The data collection
system developed and implemented
shall avoid unnecessary diversion of
resources from adoption and foster care
agencies; (2) the data collection system
shall assure that any data that is
collected is reliable and consistent over
time and among jurisdictions through
the use of uniform definitions and
methodologies; (3) the data collection
system shall provide: Comprehensive
national information with respect to the
demographic characteristics of adoptive
and foster children and their biological
and adoptive foster parents; the status of
the foster care population, the number
and characteristics of children place in
and removed from foster care; children
adopted or for whom adoptions have
been terminated; children placed in
foster care outside the state which has
placement and care responsibility; the
extent and nature of assistance provided
by federal, state, and local adoption and
foster care programs; the characteristics
of the children with respect to whom
such assistance is provided; and the
annual number of children in foster care
who are identified as sex trafficking
victims including those who were
victims before entering foster care; and
those who were victims while in foster
care; and (4) the data collection system
will utilize appropriate requirements
and incentives to ensure that the system
E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM
07APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20277-20283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07671]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-0002; EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0151, 0152, 0153, 0154, 0155,
0156, 0157 and 0158; FRL-9944-35-OLEM]
National Priorities List
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (``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 (``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 rulemaking proposes to add eight sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL. This proposed rule also withdraws a
previous proposal to add a site to the NPL.
DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before June 6, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate docket number from the table below.
Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name City/county, state Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argonaut Mine......................... Jackson, CA.............. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0151
Bonita Peak Mining District........... San Juan County, CO...... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0152
Riverside Ground Water Contamination.. Indianapolis, IN......... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0153
[[Page 20278]]
Valley Pike VOCs...................... Riverside, OH............ EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0154
Wappinger Creek....................... Dutchess County, NY...... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0155
Dorado Ground Water Contamination..... Dorado, PR............... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0156
Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc............ Live Oak, TX............. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0157
North 25th Street Glass and Zinc...... Clarksburg, WV........... EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0158
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate docket number,
at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional docket
addresses and further details on their contents, see section II,
``Public Review/Public Comment,'' of the Supplementary Information
portion of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852,
email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
B. What is the NCP?
C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?
K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
B. How do I access the documents?
C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?
D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
regional dockets?
E. How do I submit my comments?
F. What happens to my comments?
G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is
over?
I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed
to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
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
[[Page 20279]]
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
only of limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability
to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a
site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action
necessarily need be taken.
For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the
``General Superfund section''), and one of sites that are owned or
operated by other federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities
section''). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section,
these sites are generally being addressed by other federal agencies.
Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA
section 120, each federal agency is responsible for carrying out most
response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or
control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking
System (``HRS'') score and determining whether the facility is placed
on the NPL.
D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP):
(1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently
high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40
CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the
relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On
December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the
HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The
revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil
exposure and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score
28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.
(2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each state may designate a
single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any
HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent
practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each state as
the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the environment among
known facilities in the state. This mechanism for listing is set out in
the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2).
(3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score,
if all of the following conditions are met:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
The EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health.
The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to
use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond
to the release.
The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8,
1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.
E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'')
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. *
* *'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' The
EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the
releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where that contamination came.
In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. Plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. Plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
The 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
[[Page 20280]]
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 the most up-to-date information on the
CCL, see the EPA's Internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-6.
J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) 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#tab-9.
K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?
In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in
the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the
position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is
considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two
memoranda that can be found at the following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.
The EPA is improving 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 from this point forward between
the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the
EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.
II. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and
scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public
dockets located both at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in
the regional offices. These documents are also available by electronic
access at https://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the ADDRESSES
section above).
B. How do I access the documents?
You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters or the regional dockets after the publication of this
proposed 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.
The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters
Docket: 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. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments
to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)
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.
Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV),
U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA
19103; 215/814-3355.
Jennifer Wendel, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC,
TN), U.S. EPA, 61
[[Page 20281]]
Forsyth Street, SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8799.
Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA
Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/
886-4465.
Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/
665-7436.
Preston Law, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201
Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRERNB, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7097.
Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S.
EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/
312-6484.
Sharon Murray, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
415/947-4250.
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th
Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.
You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the
regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written
request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary
procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note
that due to the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized
maps may be viewed only in-person; since the EPA dockets are not
equipped to both copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them
out electronically.
You may use the docket at https://www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters docket (see instructions included in the
ADDRESSES section). Please note that there are differences between the
Headquarters docket and the regional dockets and those differences are
outlined in this preamble, Sections II.C and D.
C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?
The Headquarters docket for this proposed rule contains the
following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets;
documentation records describing the information used to compute the
score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory
requirements or the EPA listing policies; and a list of documents
referenced in the documentation record.
D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA regional
dockets?
The regional dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the
information in the Headquarters docket plus the actual reference
documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by the
EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These
reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.
E. How do I submit my comments?
Comments must be submitted to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at
the beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note
that the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery.
There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are
sent by express mail or by postal mail.
F. What happens to my comments?
The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that
the EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document
if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.
G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the
specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The EPA
will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS
or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless
they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what
particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.
H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?
Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can
guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the
close of the formal comment period. The EPA has a policy of generally
not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate
consideration of late comments.
I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the regional
dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper
form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic
public docket at https://www.regulations.gov as the EPA receives them
and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Once in the public dockets system,
select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.
J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the
NPL?
In certain instances, interested parties have written to the EPA
concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and
comment will not generally be included in the docket.
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add eight sites to
the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. All of the sites in this
proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or
above.
The sites are presented in the table below.
General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA........................... Argonaut Mine... Jackson.
[[Page 20282]]
CO........................... Bonita Peak San Juan County.
Mining District.
IN........................... Riverside Ground Indianapolis.
Water
Contamination.
OH........................... Valley Pike VOCs Riverside.
NY........................... Wappinger Creek. Dutchess County.
PR........................... Dorado Ground Dorado.
Water
Contamination.
TX........................... Eldorado Live Oak.
Chemical Co.,
Inc..
WV........................... North 25th Clarksburg.
Street Glass
and Zinc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL
The EPA is withdrawing its previous proposal to add the
Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base site in Lockbourne, Ohio to the
NPL because all appropriate cleanup actions have been taken at the site
in accordance with its reuse as an airport. The U.S. Air Force will
continue to provide funding to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
under its Defense-State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA) to provide
cleanup oversight and stewardship of institutional controls in
accordance with state law. The proposed rule can be found at 59 FR 2568
(January 18, 1994). Refer to the Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-1994-
0002 for supporting documentation regarding this action.
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. 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.
C. 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.
D. 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.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action 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.
F. 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.
G. 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.
H. 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.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. 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.
[[Page 20283]]
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.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3CFR, 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.
Dated: March 28, 2016.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management.
[FR Doc. 2016-07671 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
