Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 20277 

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. 

* * * * * 

(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 

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 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
20278 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE—Continued 

Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. 

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 

http://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 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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. 

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 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 

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 http://

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 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 http://

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 http://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. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
20282 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION—Continued 

State Site name City/County 

CO .......................................... Bonita Peak Mining District ..................................................................................................... San Juan County. 

IN ............................................ Riverside Ground Water Contamination ................................................................................. Indianapolis. 

OH .......................................... Valley Pike VOCs ................................................................................................................... Riverside. 

NY ........................................... Wappinger Creek .................................................................................................................... Dutchess County. 

PR ........................................... Dorado Ground Water Contamination .................................................................................... Dorado. 

TX ........................................... Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc. ................................................................................................... Live Oak. 

WV .......................................... North 25th Street Glass and Zinc ........................................................................................... Clarksburg. 

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. 

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. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 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 

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 

AGENCY: 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. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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 http://www.regulations. 

gov/. You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

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: 

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 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS