Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62397 

authorized NPDES program’s electronic 

reporting systems. However, if a state, 

territory, or tribe is already using EPA’s 

electronic reporting systems, the 

regulated entities would not need to 

register again as the NPDES-regulated 

entity will be using the same electronic 

reporting tool (i.e., no change in the 

subscriber agreement that accompanies 

the electronic reporting tool). 

II. Listing of the Initial Recipients for 

NPDES Electronic Reporting 

The final rule requires EPA to publish 

in the Federal Register a listing of the 

initial recipients for electronic NPDES 

information from NPDES-regulated 

facilities by state, tribe, and territory 

and by NPDES data group [see 40 CFR 

127.27(c)]. This listing must identify for 

NPDES-regulated facilities the initial 

recipient of their NPDES electronic data 

submissions and the due date for these 

NPDES electronic data submissions. The 

final rule requires authorized NPDES 

programs to send EPA an opt-out notice 

by 19 April 2016. The following is a list 

of the six states that sent an opt-out 

notice to EPA. These notices are posted 

on EPA’s Web site that provides 

implementation information. 

State 

State elected for EPA to be initial 

recipient for general permit reports 

(NPDES Data Group No. 2) 

State elected for 

EPA to be initial 

recipient for DMRs 

(NPDES Data 

Group No. 3) 

State elected for EPA to be initial 

recipient for program reports 

(NPDES Data Group Nos. 4 through 

10) 

Georgia .................................................. Yes (All) ................................................ Yes ........................ Yes (All). 

Nebraska ............................................... Yes (All) ................................................ Yes ........................ Yes (All). 

New Jersey ............................................ No ......................................................... No ......................... Yes (only for CAFO Annual Program 

Report). 

North Carolina ....................................... Yes (only for Low Erosivity Waivers 

and No Exposure Certifications).

No ......................... No. 

Oregon ................................................... Yes (All) ................................................ Yes ........................ Yes (All). 

Rhode Island ......................................... Yes (All) ................................................ Yes ........................ Yes (All). 

Note: Although not required as the initial recipient process is an ‘opt-out’ process, Tennessee sent notice to EPA that they intend to be the Initial Recipient for all NPDES data groups. 

State that have elected for EPA to be 

the Initial Recipient for all of the NPDES 

data groups will be using EPA’s 

electronic reporting tools (e.g., NetDMR, 

NeT) and NPDES data system (ICIS– 

NPDES). It should be noted that Georgia 

and Rhode Island elected to use EPA’s 

NetDMR and NPDES data system (ICIS– 

NPDES) prior to the effective date of the 

final rule. Consequently, NPDESregulated entities in these two states 

that are already using NetDMR will not 

need to take any additional actions in 

response to Georgia and Rhode Island 

designating EPA as the Initial Recipient 

for DMRs (NPDES Data Group No. 3). In 

accordance with the final rule (see 40 

CFR 127.16), NPDES-regulated entities 

in Nebraska and Oregon will need to 

register and start using NetDMR prior to 

the Phase 1 electronic reporting 

deadline (21 December 2016). New 

Jersey has elected for EPA to be the 

Initial Recipient for the Concentrated 

Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) 

Annual Program Report [see 40 CFR 

122.42(e)(4)]. In accordance with the 

final rule, CAFOs in New Jersey will 

need to register and start using NeT to 

submit their CAFO Annual Program 

Report prior to the Phase 2 electronic 

reporting deadline (21 December 2020). 

Finally, North Carolina has elected for 

EPA to be the Initial Recipient for Low 

Erosivity Waivers (LEWs) [see Exhibit 1 

to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15)] and No 

Exposure Certifications (NOEs) [see 

122.26(g)]. In accordance with the final 

rule, facilities in North Carolina will 

need to register and start using NeT to 

submit their LEWs and NOEs prior to 

the Phase 2 electronic reporting 

deadline (21 December 2020). 

For all other authorized NPDES 

programs not in the above table, the 

authorized state, tribe, or territorial 

NPDES program is the initial recipient 

for the NPDES programs and NPDES 

permits that it administers. For 

example, Arkansas will be the initial 

recipient for all NPDES Data Groups 

except for the Sewage Sludge/Biosolids 

Annual Program Reports [40 CFR part 

503], as Arkansas is not authorized for 

the Federal Biosolids NPDES program. 

Likewise, Colorado will be the initial 

recipient for all NPDES Data Groups 

except for: 

• Sewage Sludge/Biosolids Annual 

Program Reports [40 CFR part 503], 

• Pretreatment Program Reports [40 

CFR 403.12(i)], 

• Significant Industrial User 

Compliance Reports in Municipalities 

Without Approved Pretreatment 

Programs [40 CFR 403.12(e) and (h)], 

and 

• All NPDES reporting for Federal 

facilities. 

Colorado is not authorized for the 

Federal Biosolids or Pretreatment 

NPDES programs and Colorado is not 

the NPDES permitting authority for 

Federal facilities in Colorado. It should 

be noted that EPA will be the initial 

recipient for all NPDES-regulated 

entities where EPA is the permitting 

authority or authorized NPDES program. 

A full listing of NPDES program 

authorization for each state is available 

on EPA’s Web site (https://

www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-stateprogram-information). 

Dated: August 24, 2016. 

David Hindin, 

Director, Office of Compliance, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. 

[FR Doc. 2016–21204 Filed 9–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0151, 0152, 0154, 

0155, 0156, 0157 and 0158; EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2015–0139, 0575 and 0576; FRL– 

9952–06–OLEM] 

National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended, 

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list 

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is 

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘the 

EPA’’ or ‘‘the agency’’) in determining 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62398 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow the EPA to 

assess the nature and extent of public 

health and environmental risks 

associated with the site and to 

determine what CERCLA-financed 

remedial action(s), if any, may be 

appropriate. This rule adds ten sites to 

the General Superfund section of the 

NPL. 

DATES: The document is effective on 

October 11, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Contact information for the 

EPA Headquarters: 

• Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., William 

Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 

3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202–566– 

0276. 

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. 

• Cathy Amoroso, Region 4 (AL, FL, 

GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 

Forsyth Street SW., Mailcode 9T25, 

Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562–8637. 

• 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. 

• Brian Mitchell, Region 7 (IA, KS, 

MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd., 

Mailcode SUPR/SPEB, Lenexa, KS 

66219; 913/551–7633. 

• Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, 

MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129; 303/312–6578. 

• 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. 

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. Availability of Information to the Public 

A. May I review the documents relevant to 

this final rule? 

B. What documents are available for review 

at the EPA headquarters docket? 

C. What documents are available for review 

at the EPA regional dockets? 

D. How do I access the documents? 

E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL 

sites? 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

B. What did the EPA do with the public 

comments it received? 

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 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675 (‘‘CERCLA’’ or 

‘‘the Act’’), in response to the dangers of 

uncontrolled releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, and 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. CERCLA was 

amended on October 17, 1986, by the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’), Public 

Law 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq. 

B. What is the NCP? 

To implement CERCLA, the EPA 

promulgated the revised National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’), 40 CFR part 

300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), 

pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and 

Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, 

August 20, 1981). The NCP sets 

guidelines and procedures for 

responding to releases and threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, or 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. The EPA has 

revised the NCP on several occasions. 

The most recent comprehensive revision 

was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666). 

As required under section 

105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also 

includes ‘‘criteria for determining 

priorities among releases or threatened 

releases throughout the United States 

for the purpose of taking remedial 

action and, to the extent practicable, 

taking into account the potential 

urgency of such action, for the purpose 

of taking removal action.’’ ‘‘Removal’’ 

actions are defined broadly and include 

a wide range of actions taken to study, 

clean up, prevent or otherwise address 

releases and threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)). 

C. What is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

The NPL is a list of national priorities 

among the known or threatened releases 

of hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The list, which is appendix B of 

the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required 

under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, 

as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) 

defines the NPL as a list of ‘‘releases’’ 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62399 

and the highest priority ‘‘facilities’’ and 

requires that the NPL be revised at least 

annually. The NPL is intended 

primarily to guide the EPA in 

determining which sites warrant further 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

of only limited significance, however, as 

it does not assign liability to any party 

or to the owner of any specific property. 

Also, placing a site on the NPL does not 

mean that any remedial or removal 

action necessarily need be taken. 

For purposes of listing, the NPL 

includes two sections, one of sites that 

are generally evaluated and cleaned up 

by the EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund 

section’’) and one of sites that are 

owned or operated by other federal 

agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities 

section’’). With respect to sites in the 

Federal Facilities section, these sites are 

generally being addressed by other 

federal agencies. Under Executive Order 

12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) 

and CERCLA section 120, each federal 

agency is responsible for carrying out 

most response actions at facilities under 

its own jurisdiction, custody or control, 

although the EPA is responsible for 

preparing a Hazard Ranking System 

(‘‘HRS’’) score and determining whether 

the facility is placed on the NPL. 

D. How are sites listed on the NPL? 

There are three mechanisms for 

placing sites on the NPL for possible 

remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) 

of the NCP): (1) A site may be included 

on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high 

on the HRS, which the EPA 

promulgated as appendix A of the NCP 

(40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a 

screening tool to evaluate the relative 

potential of uncontrolled hazardous 

substances, pollutants or contaminants 

to pose a threat to human health or the 

environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 

FR 51532), the EPA promulgated 

revisions to the HRS partly in response 

to CERCLA section 105(c), added by 

SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four 

pathways: Ground water, surface water, 

soil exposure and air. As a matter of 

agency policy, those sites that score 

28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible 

for the NPL. (2) Each state may 

designate a single site as its top priority 

to be listed on the NPL, without any 

HRS score. This provision of CERCLA 

requires that, to the extent practicable, 

the NPL include one facility designated 

by each state as the greatest danger to 

public health, welfare or the 

environment among known facilities in 

the state. This mechanism for listing is 

set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 

300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism 

for listing, included in the NCP at 40 

CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites 

to be listed without any HRS score, if all 

of the following conditions are met: 

• The Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the 

U.S. Public Health Service has issued a 

health advisory that recommends 

dissociation of individuals from the 

release. 

• The EPA determines that the release 

poses a significant threat to public 

health. 

• The EPA anticipates that it will be 

more cost-effective to use its remedial 

authority than to use its removal 

authority to respond to the release. 

The EPA promulgated an original NPL 

of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 

40658) and generally has updated it at 

least annually. 

E. What happens to sites on the NPL? 

A site may undergo remedial action 

financed by the Trust Fund established 

under CERCLA (commonly referred to 

as the ‘‘Superfund’’) only after it is 

placed on the NPL, as provided in the 

NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). 

(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those 

‘‘consistent with a permanent remedy, 

taken instead of or in addition to 

removal actions’’ (40 CFR 300.5)). 

However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), 

placing a site on the NPL ‘‘does not 

imply that monies will be expended.’’ 

The EPA may pursue other appropriate 

authorities to respond to the releases, 

including enforcement action under 

CERCLA and other laws. 

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries 

of sites? 

The NPL does not describe releases in 

precise geographical terms; it would be 

neither feasible nor consistent with the 

limited purpose of the NPL (to identify 

releases that are priorities for further 

evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the 

precise nature and extent of the site are 

typically not known at the time of 

listing. 

Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is 

broadly defined to include any area 

where a hazardous substance has ‘‘come 

to be located’’ (CERCLA section 101(9)), 

the listing process itself is not intended 

to define or reflect the boundaries of 

such facilities or releases. Of course, 

HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a 

site) upon which the NPL placement 

was based will, to some extent, describe 

the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL 

site would include all releases evaluated 

as part of that HRS analysis. 

When a site is listed, the approach 

generally used to describe the relevant 

release(s) is to delineate a geographical 

area (usually the area within an 

installation or plant boundaries) and 

identify the site by reference to that 

area. However, the NPL site is not 

necessarily coextensive with the 

boundaries of the installation or plant, 

and the boundaries of the installation or 

plant are not necessarily the 

‘‘boundaries’’ of the site. Rather, the site 

consists of all contaminated areas 

within the area used to identify the site, 

as well as any other location where that 

contamination has come to be located, 

or from where that contamination came. 

In other words, while geographic 

terms are often used to designate the site 

(e.g., the ‘‘Jones Co. Plant site’’) in terms 

of the property owned by a particular 

party, the site, properly understood, is 

not limited to that property (e.g., it may 

extend beyond the property due to 

contaminant migration), and conversely 

may not occupy the full extent of the 

property (e.g., where there are 

uncontaminated parts of the identified 

property, they may not be, strictly 

speaking, part of the ‘‘site’’). The ‘‘site’’ 

is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, 

the boundaries of any specific property 

that may give the site its name, and the 

name itself should not be read to imply 

that this site is coextensive with the 

entire area within the property 

boundary of the installation or plant. In 

addition, the site name is merely used 

to help identify the geographic location 

of the contamination, and is not meant 

to constitute any determination of 

liability at a site. For example, the name 

‘‘Jones Co. plant site,’’ does not imply 

that the Jones Company is responsible 

for the contamination located on the 

plant site. 

EPA regulations provide that the 

remedial investigation (‘‘RI’’) ‘‘is a 

process undertaken . . . to determine 

the nature and extent of the problem 

presented by the release’’ as more 

information is developed on site 

contamination, and which is generally 

performed in an interactive fashion with 

the feasibility study (‘‘FS’’) (40 CFR 

300.5). During the RI/FS process, the 

release may be found to be larger or 

smaller than was originally thought, as 

more is learned about the source(s) and 

the migration of the contamination. 

However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an 

evaluation of the threat posed and 

therefore the boundaries of the release 

need not be exactly defined. Moreover, 

it generally is impossible to discover the 

full extent of where the contamination 

‘‘has come to be located’’ before all 

necessary studies and remedial work are 

completed at a site. Indeed, the known 

boundaries of the contamination can be 

expected to change over time. Thus, in 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62400 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

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 more 

information on the CCL, see the EPA’s 

Internet site at https://www.epa.gov/ 

superfund/superfund-remedialperformance-measures#cc_anchor. 

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for 

Anticipated Use measure? 

The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated 

Use measure represents important 

Superfund accomplishments and the 

measure reflects the high priority the 

EPA places on considering anticipated 

future land use as part of the remedy 

selection process. See Guidance for 

Implementing the Sitewide Ready-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 has improved the 

transparency of the process by which 

state and tribal input is solicited. The 

EPA is using the Web and where 

appropriate more structured state and 

tribal correspondence that (1) explains 

the concerns at the site and the EPA’s 

rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an 

explanation of how the state intends to 

address the site if placement on the NPL 

is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the 

transparent nature of the process by 

informing states that information on 

their responses will be publicly 

available. 

A model letter and correspondence 

between the EPA and states and tribes 

where applicable, is available on the 

EPA’s Web site at https://www.epa.gov/ 

superfund/statetribal-correspondenceconcerning-npl-site-listing.htm. 

II. Availability of Information to the 

Public 

A. May I review the documents relevant 

to this final rule? 

Yes, documents relating to the 

evaluation and scoring of the sites in 

this final rule are contained in dockets 

located both at the EPA headquarters 

and in the EPA regional offices. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through http://

www.regulations.gov (see table below 

for docket identification numbers). 

Although not all docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

docket materials through the docket 

facilities identified in section II.D. 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE

Site name City/county, State Docket ID No. 

Argonaut Mine .......................................................................................... Jackson, CA ................................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0151 

Bonita Peak Mining District ...................................................................... San Juan County, CO .................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0152 

West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination ......................................... Indianapolis, IN ............................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0575 

SBA Shipyard ........................................................................................... Jennings, LA ................................... EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0576 

Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls Reduction Plant ....................... Columbia Falls, MT ........................ EPA–HQ–SFUND–2015–0139 

Wappinger Creek ...................................................................................... Dutchess County, NY ..................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0155 

Valley Pike VOCs ..................................................................................... Riverside, OH ................................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0154 

Dorado Ground Water Contamination ...................................................... Dorado, PR ..................................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0156 

Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc. ..................................................................... Live Oak, TX .................................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0157 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62401 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE—Continued 

Site name City/county, State Docket ID No. 

North 25th Street Glass and Zinc ............................................................. Clarksburg, WV .............................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2016–0158 

B. What documents are available for 

review at the EPA headquarters docket? 

The headquarters docket for this rule 

contains the HRS score sheets, the 

documentation record describing the 

information used to compute the score 

and a list of documents referenced in 

the documentation record for each site. 

C. What documents are available for 

review at the EPA regional dockets? 

The EPA regional dockets contain all 

the information in the headquarters 

docket, plus the actual reference 

documents containing the data 

principally relied upon by the EPA in 

calculating or evaluating the HRS score. 

These reference documents are available 

only in the regional dockets. 

D. How do I access the documents? 

You may view the documents, by 

appointment only, after the publication 

of this rule. The hours of operation for 

the headquarters docket are from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding federal holidays. 

Please contact the regional dockets for 

hours. For addresses for the 

headquarters and regional dockets, see 

‘‘Addresses’’ section in the beginning 

portion of this preamble. 

E. How may I obtain a current list of 

NPL sites? 

You may obtain a current list of NPL 

sites via the Internet at https://

www.epa.gov/superfund/nationalpriorities-list-npl-sites-site-name or by 

contacting the Superfund docket (see 

contact information in the beginning 

portion of this document). 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

This final rule adds the following ten 

sites to the General Superfund section of 

the NPL. These sites are being added to 

the NPL based on HRS score. 

General Superfund section: 

State Site name City/county 

CA ..................... Argonaut Mine .......................................................................................................................................... Jackson. 

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

IN ....................... West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination ......................................................................................... Indianapolis. 

LA ...................... SBA Shipyard ........................................................................................................................................... Jennings. 

MT ..................... Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls Reduction Plant ...................................................................... Columbia Falls. 

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

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

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

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

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

B. What did the EPA do with the public 

comments it received? 

The EPA reviewed all comments 

received on the sites in this rule and 

responded to all relevant comments. 

The EPA is adding ten sites to the NPL 

in this final rule, all to the General 

Superfund section. Comments on the 

Bonita Peak Mining District (San Juan 

County, CO), West Vermont Drinking 

Water Contamination (Indianapolis, IN), 

SBA Shipyard (Jennings, LA) and 

Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia 

Falls Reduction Plant (Columbia Falls, 

MT) sites are addressed in a response to 

comment support document available in 

the public docket concurrently with this 

rule. 

The remaining six sites being added 

to the NPL in this rule did not receive 

any comments urging specific changes 

to the HRS score. The Valley Pike VOCs 

(Riverside, OH) site received no 

comments. The Dorado Ground Water 

Contamination (Dorado, PR) and 

Eldorado Chemical Co., Inc. (Live Oak, 

TX) sites both received only erroneous 

comments that were meant for other 

sites but were directed to incorrect 

docket numbers. 

The Argonaut Mine (Jackson, CA) site 

received two comments urging EPA to 

list, one from a citizen and one from the 

Mayor of the City of Jackson. In 

response, EPA is placing the Argonaut 

Mine site on the NPL. 

The Wappinger Creek (Dutchess 

County, NY) site received three 

comments, all urging EPA to list the 

site, one from a citizen, one anonymous 

and one from Senator Gillibrand. In 

response, EPA is placing the Wappinger 

Creek site on the NPL. 

The North 25th Street Glass and Zinc 

(Clarksburg, WV) site received nine 

comments. Three of those comments 

were erroneous comments directed 

toward the incorrect docket. Three of 

the comments urged EPA to list the site 

and two urged EPA to clean up the site. 

One comment raised objections to tax 

payer money being wasted on hazardous 

waste lawsuits. In response, nothing 

raised in this comment impacted the 

HRS score or the decision to list the site 

on the NPL. Therefore, EPA is adding 

the North 25th Street Glass and Zinc site 

to the NPL. 

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 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
62402 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

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 final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

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. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States. This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Provisions of the Congressional 

Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of 

CERCLA may alter the effective date of 

this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 

801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or 

continue in effect, if Congress enacts 

(and the President signs) a joint 

resolution of disapproval, described 

under section 802. Another statutory 

provision that may affect this rule is 

CERCLA section 305, which provides 

for a legislative veto of regulations 

promulgated under CERCLA. Although 

INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 

2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of the 

University of Washington v. EPA, 86 

F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cast the 

validity of the legislative veto into 

question, the EPA has transmitted a 

copy of this regulation to the Secretary 

of the Senate and the Clerk of the House 

of Representatives. 

If action by Congress under either the 

CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the 

effective date of this regulation into 

question, the EPA will publish a 

document of clarification in the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Natural 

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: September 1, 2016. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and 

Emergency Management. 

40 CFR part 300 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 

POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

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. 

■ 2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 

is amended by adding entries for 

‘‘Argonaut Mine’’, ‘‘Bonita Peak Mining 

District’’, ‘‘West Vermont Drinking 

Water Contamination’’, ‘‘SBA 

Shipyard’’, ‘‘Anaconda Aluminum Co 

Columbia Falls Reduction Plant’’, 

‘‘Wappinger Creek’’, ‘‘Valley Pike 

VOCs’’, ‘‘Dorado Ground Water 

Contamination’’, ‘‘Eldorado Chemical 

Co., Inc.’’, and ‘‘North 25th Street Glass 

and Zinc’’ in alphabetical order by state 

to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62403 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes a

*******

CA .................... Argonaut Mine ............................................................................................................ Jackson.

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

IN ...................... West Vermont Drinking Water Contamination ........................................................... Indianapolis.

* * * * * * * 

LA ..................... SBA Shipyard ............................................................................................................. Jennings.

MT .................... Anaconda Aluminum Co Columbia Falls Reduction Plant ........................................ Columbia Falls.

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

*******

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

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

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

aA = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be greater 

than or equal to 28.50). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2016–21615 Filed 9–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 8 

[Docket No. 2016–0001] 

RIN–0930–AA22 

Medication Assisted Treatment for 

Opioid Use Disorders; Correction 

AGENCY: Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration, HHS. 

ACTION: Correcting amendment. 

SUMMARY: The Health and Human 

Services Department (HHS) is correcting 

a final rule that appeared in the Federal 

Register on July 8, 2016. The final rule 

increased the maximum number of 

patients to whom an individual 

practitioner may dispense or prescribe 

certain medications, including 

buprenorphine, from 100 to 275. 

Practitioners are eligible for the 

increased patient limit if they have 

prescribed covered medications to up to 

100 patients for at least one year 

pursuant to secretarial approval, 

provided that they meet certain criteria 

and adhere to several additional 

requirements aimed at ensuring that 

patients receive the full array of services 

that comprise evidence-based 

medication-assisted treatment (MAT) 

and minimize the risks that medications 

provided for treatment are misused or 

diverted. One pathway through which 

practitioners may become eligible to 

increase their patient limit is by 

obtaining additional credentialing from 

one of several credentialing bodies. In 

the final rule, the name of one of the 

credentialing bodies listed was 

incorrect. This action provides the 

correct name. 

DATES: Effective on September 9, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jinhee Lee, Division of Pharmacologic 

Therapies, Center for Substance Abuse 

Treatment, SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers 

Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, (240) 276– 

2700, email: Jinhee.Lee@

samhsa.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 8, 

2016 (81 FR 44711), HHS published a 

final rule in the Federal Register, which 

increased the maximum number of 

patients to whom an individual 

practitioner may dispense or prescribe 

certain medications, including 

buprenorphine, from 100 to 275. One of 

the pathways through which 

practitioners can become eligible to 

increase their patient limit is by 

receiving additional credentialing. 

In the final rule, the American 

Osteopathic Academy of Addiction 

Medicine (AOAAM), which provides 

training but not certification, was 

mistakenly included in the definition 

for ‘‘additional credentialing.’’ HHS 

intended to include the American 

Osteopathic Association (AOA) in this 

definition, not AOAAM. This intention 

was evident in HHS’s Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 

published on March 30, 2016, which 

proposed defining ‘‘board certification’’ 

so as to include ‘‘subspecialty board 

certification in addiction medicine from 

the American Osteopathic Association 

(AOA) . . . .’’ AOAAM, on the other 

hand, was not referenced within the 

NPRM. Accordingly, HHS gave the 

public notice and an opportunity to 

comment on its proposal to include 

AOA board certification as one of the 

credentials that would make 

practitioners eligible to practice at the 

higher patient cap. No public comments 

were received that related to AOA’s role 

in the proposed rule. 

HHS’s intention to reference AOA 

(not AOAAM) was also reflected in the 

preamble of the final rule; AOA board 

certification was referenced in Section B 

of the Regulatory Impact Analysis, 

which stated that ‘‘[t]he training 

requirement may be satisfied in several 

ways: One may hold board certification 

in . . . addiction medicine from the 

American Osteopathic Association 

. . . .’’ HHS also explained in the 

preamble of the final rule that, ‘‘HHS 

removed the term ‘board certification’ 

and added ‘additional credentialing’ to 

clarify that all practitioners who 

currently qualify to treat up to 100 

patients are eligible for the higher 

patient limit if they are included as 

specialists as described in 21 U.S.C. 823 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES