Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14805 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 8, 2022. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. In § 52.120, amend paragraph (c) 

by: 

■ a. In Table 2 removing the entry for 

‘‘R18–2–310’’, and 

■ b. In Table 4 removing the entry for 

‘‘Rule 140’’. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05367 Filed 3–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0454, 0456, 0457, 

0458, 0459, 0460, 0461, 0462, 0464, 0465, 

0466 and 0467; FRL–9184–01–OLEM] 

National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

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

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

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

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘the 

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

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow the EPA to 

assess the nature and extent of public 

health and environmental risks 

associated with the site and to 

determine what CERCLA-financed 

remedial action(s), if any, may be 

appropriate. This rule adds 12 sites to 

the NPL, 11 to the General Superfund 

section and one to the Federal Facilities 

section. 

DATES: The rule is effective on April 15, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Contact information for the 

EPA Headquarters: 

• Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW; William 

Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 

3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566– 

0276. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Jeng, phone: (202) 566–1048, 

email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site 

Assessment and Remedy Decisions 

Branch, Assessment and Remediation 

Division, Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology 

Innovation (Mailcode 5204T), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, 

phone (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412– 

9810 in the Washington, DC, 

metropolitan area. 

The contact information for the 

regional dockets is as follows: 

• Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, 

NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund 

Records and Information Center, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912; 617/918–1413. 

• James Desir, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, 

VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New 

York, NY 10007–1866; 212/637–4342. 

• Lorie Baker, Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, 

PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 

Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814–3355. 

• Sandra Bramble, Region 4 (AL, FL, 

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

Forsyth Street SW, Mailcode 9T25, 

Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562–8926. 

• Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, 

MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund 

Division Librarian/SFD Records 

Manager SRC–7J, Metcalfe Federal 

Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886–4465. 

• Michelle Delgado-Brown, Region 6 

(AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1201 

Elm Street, Suite 500, Mailcode SED, 

Dallas, TX 75270; 214/665–3154. 

• Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, 

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

Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 

66219; 913/551–7956. 

• Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, 

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

Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129; 303/312–6578. 

• Eugenia Chow, Region 9 (AZ, CA, 

HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 

Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6–1, 

San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972– 

3160. 

• Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, 

WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 

155, Mailcode 12–D12–1, Seattle, WA 

98101; 206/890–0591. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

B. What is the NCP? 

C. What is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

D. How are sites listed on the NPL? 

E. What happens to sites on the NPL? 

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of 

sites? 

G. How are sites removed from the NPL? 

H. May the EPA delete portions of sites 

from the NPL as they are cleaned up? 

I. What is the Construction Completion List 

(CCL)? 

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for 

Anticipated Use measure? 

K. What is state/tribal correspondence 

concerning NPL Listing? 

II. Availability of Information to the Public 

A. May I review the documents relevant to 

this final rule? 

B. What documents are available for review 

at the EPA Headquarters docket? 

C. What documents are available for review 

at the EPA regional dockets? 

D. How do I access the documents? 

E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL 

sites? 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

B. What did the EPA do with the public 

comments it received? 

C. Clarification of Figure for Meeker 

Avenue Plume Site 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
14806 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

L. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

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

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

uncontrolled releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, and 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. CERCLA was 

amended on October 17, 1986, by the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’), Public 

Law 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq. 

B. What is the NCP? 

To implement CERCLA, the EPA 

promulgated the revised National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

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

pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and 

Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, 

August 20, 1981). The NCP sets 

guidelines and procedures for 

responding to releases and threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, or 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. The EPA has 

revised the NCP on several occasions. 

The most recent comprehensive revision 

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

As required under section 

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

includes ‘‘criteria for determining 

priorities among releases or threatened 

releases throughout the United States 

for the purpose of taking remedial 

action and, to the extent practicable, 

taking into account the potential 

urgency of such action, for the purpose 

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

actions are defined broadly and include 

a wide range of actions taken to study, 

clean up, prevent or otherwise address 

releases and threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

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

C. What is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

The NPL is a list of national priorities 

among the known or threatened releases 

of hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The list, which is appendix B of 

the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required 

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

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

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

and the highest priority ‘‘facilities’’ and 

requires that the NPL be revised at least 

annually. The NPL is intended 

primarily to guide the EPA in 

determining which sites warrant further 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

of only limited significance, however, as 

it does not assign liability to any party 

or to the owner of any specific property. 

Also, placing a site on the NPL does not 

mean that any remedial or removal 

action necessarily need be taken. 

For purposes of listing, the NPL 

includes two sections, one of sites that 

are generally evaluated and cleaned up 

by the EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund 

section’’) and one of sites that are 

owned or operated by other Federal 

agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities 

section’’). With respect to sites in the 

Federal Facilities section, these sites are 

generally being addressed by other 

federal agencies. Under Executive Order 

12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) 

and CERCLA section 120, each Federal 

agency is responsible for carrying out 

most response actions at facilities under 

its own jurisdiction, custody or control, 

although the EPA is responsible for 

preparing a Hazard Ranking System 

(‘‘HRS’’) score and determining whether 

the facility is placed on the NPL. 

D. How are sites listed on the NPL? 

There are three mechanisms for 

placing sites on the NPL for possible 

remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) 

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

on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high 

on the HRS, which the EPA 

promulgated as appendix A of the NCP 

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

screening tool to evaluate the relative 

potential of uncontrolled hazardous 

substances, pollutants or contaminants 

to pose a threat to human health or the 

environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 

FR 51532), the EPA promulgated 

revisions to the HRS partly in response 

to CERCLA section 105(c), added by 

SARA. On January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2760), 

a subsurface intrusion component was 

added to the HRS to enable the EPA to 

consider human exposure to hazardous 

substances or pollutants and 

contaminants that enter regularly 

occupied structures through subsurface 

intrusion when evaluating sites for the 

NPL. The current HRS evaluates four 

pathways: Ground water, surface water, 

soil exposure and subsurface intrusion, 

and air. As a matter of agency policy, 

those sites that score 28.50 or greater on 

the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) 

Each state may designate a single site as 

its top priority to be listed on the NPL, 

without any HRS score. This provision 

of CERCLA requires that, to the extent 

practicable, the NPL include one facility 

designated by each state as the greatest 

danger to public health, welfare or the 

environment among known facilities in 

the state. This mechanism for listing is 

set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 

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

for listing, included in the NCP at 40 

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

to be listed without any HRS score, if all 

of the following conditions are met: 

• The Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the 

U.S. Public Health Service has issued a 

health advisory that recommends 

dissociation of individuals from the 

release. 

• The EPA determines that the release 

poses a significant threat to public 

health. 

• The EPA anticipates that it will be 

more cost-effective to use its remedial 

authority than to use its removal 

authority to respond to the release. 

The EPA promulgated an original NPL 

of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 

40658) and generally has updated it at 

least annually. 

E. What happens to sites on the NPL? 

A site may undergo remedial action 

financed by the Trust Fund established 

under CERCLA (commonly referred to 

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

placed on the NPL, as provided in the 

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

(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those 

‘‘consistent with a permanent remedy, 

taken instead of or in addition to 

removal actions’’ (40 CFR 300.5).) 

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

placing a site on the NPL ‘‘does not 

imply that monies will be expended.’’ 

The EPA may pursue other appropriate 

authorities to respond to the releases, 

including enforcement action under 

CERCLA and other laws. 

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries 

of sites? 

The NPL does not describe releases in 

precise geographical terms; it would be 

neither feasible nor consistent with the 

limited purpose of the NPL (to identify 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14807 

releases that are priorities for further 

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

precise nature and extent of the site are 

typically not known at the time of 

listing. 

Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is 

broadly defined to include any area 

where a hazardous substance has ‘‘come 

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

the listing process itself is not intended 

to define or reflect the boundaries of 

such facilities or releases. Of course, 

HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a 

site) upon which the NPL placement 

was based will, to some extent, describe 

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

site would include all releases evaluated 

as part of that HRS analysis. 

When a site is listed, the approach 

generally used to describe the relevant 

release(s) is to delineate a geographical 

area (usually the area within an 

installation or plant boundaries) and 

identify the site by reference to that 

area. However, the NPL site is not 

necessarily coextensive with the 

boundaries of the installation or plant, 

and the boundaries of the installation or 

plant are not necessarily the 

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

consists of all contaminated areas 

within the area used to identify the site, 

as well as any other location where that 

contamination has come to be located, 

or from where that contamination came. 

In other words, while geographic 

terms are often used to designate the site 

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

of the property owned by a particular 

party, the site, properly understood, is 

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

extend beyond the property due to 

contaminant migration), and conversely 

may not occupy the full extent of the 

property (e.g., where there are 

uncontaminated parts of the identified 

property, they may not be, strictly 

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

is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, 

the boundaries of any specific property 

that may give the site its name, and the 

name itself should not be read to imply 

that this site is coextensive with the 

entire area within the property 

boundary of the installation or plant. In 

addition, the site name is merely used 

to help identify the geographic location 

of the contamination; and is not meant 

to constitute any determination of 

liability at a site. For example, the name 

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

that the Jones Company is responsible 

for the contamination located on the 

plant site. 

EPA regulations provide that the 

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

process undertaken . . . to determine 

the nature and extent of the problem 

presented by the release’’ as more 

information is developed on site 

contamination, and which is generally 

performed in an interactive fashion with 

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

300.5). During the RI/FS process, the 

release may be found to be larger or 

smaller than was originally thought, as 

more is learned about the source(s) and 

the migration of the contamination. 

However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an 

evaluation of the threat posed and 

therefore the boundaries of the release 

need not be exactly defined. Moreover, 

it generally is impossible to discover the 

full extent of where the contamination 

‘‘has come to be located’’ before all 

necessary studies and remedial work are 

completed at a site. Indeed, the known 

boundaries of the contamination can be 

expected to change over time. Thus, in 

most cases, it may be impossible to 

describe the boundaries of a release 

with absolute certainty. 

Further, as noted previously, NPL 

listing does not assign liability to any 

party or to the owner of any specific 

property. Thus, if a party does not 

believe it is liable for releases on 

discrete parcels of property, it can 

submit supporting information to the 

agency at any time after it receives 

notice it is a potentially responsible 

party. 

For these reasons, the NPL need not 

be amended as further research reveals 

more information about the location of 

the contamination or release. 

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

The EPA may delete sites from the

NPL where no further response is 

appropriate under Superfund, as 

explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 

300.425(e). This section also provides 

that the EPA shall consult with states on 

proposed deletions and shall consider 

whether any of the following criteria 

have been met: 

(i) Responsible parties or other

persons have implemented all 

appropriate response actions required; 

(ii) All appropriate 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/construction-completionsnational-priorities-list-npl-sites-number. 

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for

Anticipated Use measure?

The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated 

Use measure represents important 

Superfund accomplishments, and the 

measure reflects the high priority the 

EPA places on considering anticipated 

future land use as part of the remedy 

selection process. See Guidance for 

Implementing the Sitewide Ready-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-cleanupprocess#reuse. 

K. What is state/tribal correspondence

concerning NPL listing?

In order to maintain close 

coordination with states and tribes in 

the NPL listing decision process, the 

EPA’s policy is to determine the 

position of the states and tribes 

regarding sites that the EPA is 

considering for listing. This 

consultation process is outlined in two 

memoranda that can be found at the 

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


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
14808 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

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

The EPA has improved the 

transparency of the process by which 

state and tribal input is solicited. The 

EPA is using the Web and where 

appropriate more structured state and 

tribal correspondence that: (1) Explains 

the concerns at the site and the EPA’s 

rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an 

explanation of how the state intends to 

address the site if placement on the NPL 

is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the 

transparent nature of the process by 

informing states that information on 

their responses will be publicly 

available. 

A model letter and correspondence 

between the EPA and states and tribes 

where applicable, is available on the 

EPA’s website at https://www.epa.gov/ 

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

II. Availability of Information to the 

Public 

A. May I review the documents relevant 

to this final rule? 

Yes, documents relating to the 

evaluation and scoring of the sites in 

this final rule are contained in dockets 

located both at the EPA headquarters 

and in the EPA regional offices. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through https://

www.regulations.gov (see table below 

for docket identification numbers). 

Although not all docket materials may 

be available electronically, you may still 

access any of the publicly available 

docket materials through the docket 

facilities identified in section II.D. 

DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE

Site name City/county, state Docket ID No. 

Westside Lead .......................................................................................... Atlanta, GA ..................................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0454. 

North 5th Street Groundwater Contamination .......................................... Goshen, IN ..................................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0456. 

Lower Neponset River .............................................................................. Boston/Milton, MA .......................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0457. 

Bear Creek Sediments ............................................................................. Baltimore County, MD .................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0458. 

Michner Plating—Mechanic Street ........................................................... Jackson, MI .................................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0459. 

Southeast Hennepin Area Groundwater and Vapor ................................ Minneapolis, MN ............................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0460. 

Meeker Avenue Plume ............................................................................. Brooklyn, NY .................................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0461. 

Bradford Island ......................................................................................... Cascade Locks, OR ....................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0462. 

Galey and Lord Plant ................................................................................ Society Hill, SC .............................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0464. 

National Fireworks .................................................................................... Cordova, TN ................................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0465. 

Unity Auto Mart ......................................................................................... Unity, WI ......................................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0466. 

Paden City Groundwater .......................................................................... Paden City, WV .............................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2021–0467. 

B. What documents are available for 

review at the EPA headquarters docket? 

The headquarters docket for this rule 

contains the HRS score sheets, the 

documentation record describing the 

information used to compute the score, 

a list of documents referenced in the 

documentation record for each site and 

any other information used to support 

the NPL listing of the site. 

C. What documents are available for 

review at the EPA regional dockets? 

The EPA regional dockets contain all 

the information in the headquarters 

docket, plus the actual reference 

documents containing the data 

principally relied upon by the EPA in 

calculating or evaluating the HRS score. 

These reference documents are available 

only in the regional dockets. 

D. How do I access the documents? 

You may view the documents, by 

appointment only, after the publication 

of this rule. The hours of operation for 

the headquarters docket are from 8:30 

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

Friday, excluding federal holidays. 

Please contact the regional dockets for 

hours. For addresses for the 

headquarters and regional dockets, see 

ADDRESSES section in the beginning 

portion of this preamble. 

E. How may I obtain a current list of 

NPL sites? 

You may obtain a current list of NPL 

sites via the internet at https://

www.epa.gov/superfund/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 12 

sites to the NPL, 11 to the General 

Superfund section and one to the 

Federal Facilities section. All of these 

sites are being added to the NPL based 

on an HRS score of 28.50 or above. 

GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county 

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

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

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

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

MI .................................. Michner Plating—Mechanic Street ................................................................................................... Jackson. 

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

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

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

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

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

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


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14809 

FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION

State Site name City/county 

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

B. What did the EPA do with the public 

comments it received? 

The EPA reviewed all comments 

received on the sites in this rule and 

responded to all relevant comments. 

The EPA is adding 12 sites to the NPL 

in this final rule. All 12 sites were 

proposed for addition to the NPL on 

September 9, 2021 (86 FR 50515). 

Comments on the Westside Lead and 

Bradford Island sites are being 

addressed in response to comment 

support documents available in the 

public docket concurrently with this 

rule. To view public comments on these 

sites, as well as the EPA’s responses, 

please refer to the support documents 

available per docket ID number at 

https://www.regulations.gov. Below is a 

summary of significant comments 

received on the remaining sites. 

Paden City Groundwater: 

The EPA received seven comments on 

the Paden City Groundwater site. One 

comment did not oppose adding the site 

to the NPL and one comment supported 

listing. Five comments, in support of 

listing Paden City Groundwater, were 

erroneously received in the dockets for 

Westside Lead, Bear Creek Sediments, 

and Bradford Island. Two additional 

comments were received in the Paden 

City Groundwater docket but were 

comments directed at the Meeker 

Avenue Plume and Galey and Lord 

Plant sites. Three comments supported 

listing the Paden City Groundwater site 

and expressed concerns related to the 

health impacts of tetrachloroethylene 

(PCE) contamination in groundwater, 

and one comment also expressed 

concerns about the financial impact of 

the need to purchase clean drinking 

water due to contaminated tap water. 

One commenter submitted comments 

regarding possible contamination in a 

basement and inquired whether there 

should be concern regarding the 

contamination. 

Following listing, the EPA will be 

conducting additional sampling to 

determine the extent of the 

contamination, determine what actual 

risks are associated with the site, and 

take necessary actions to address any 

health impacts. The EPA performs a 

comprehensive risk assessment for the 

site as part of further investigations that 

typically follow listing. A subsequent 

stage of the Superfund process, the 

remedial investigation (RI), 

characterizes conditions and hazards at 

the site more comprehensively. The 

results of risk assessment activities will 

be considered during the evaluation of 

the need for remedial actions at the site. 

Additionally, the EPA has contacted one 

resident directly to address specific 

health concerns and to discuss the 

location of their properties in relation to 

the site contamination. 

National Fireworks: 

The EPA received three comments on 

the National Fireworks site from two 

private citizens and one non-profit 

organization. One private citizen and 

the non-profit organization expressed 

support for listing the National 

Fireworks site on the NPL due the 

presence of contaminated groundwater. 

The non-profit organization stated that 

it was concerned that per- and 

polyfluorinated substances (PFAS) may 

be present in the groundwater in 

addition to chlorinated solvents due the 

former use of industrial degreasers at 

the site. The third commenter, a private 

citizen, did not oppose adding the site 

to the NPL but expressed opposition to 

the rationale for listing the site. The 

commenter stated that the study used to 

support listing contained inaccuracies 

and attributed contamination to an 

operation that was present for only two 

years even though other possible origins 

of the contamination existed. The 

commenter asserted that these other 

possible origins included an industrial 

park that had operated for 35 years and 

a railroad that operated in area until the 

mid-1990s. 

The National Fireworks site qualifies 

for addition to the NPL because it has 

achieved an HRS score of 28.50 or 

greater, as is demonstrated in the HRS 

documentation record at proposal. 

Achieving a site score of greater than 

28.50 indicates that the site is eligible 

for inclusion on the NPL and therefore 

may warrant further investigation. The 

HRS documentation record at proposal 

outlines the specific rationale for 

attributing the observed release to 

groundwater to the site consistent with 

the requirements in the HRS. The 

requirements in the HRS state that 

‘‘some portion of the release must be 

attributable to the site.’’ As indicated in 

the attribution section of the HRS 

documentation record at proposal, 

attribution of at least some of the release 

is supported, in part, by the detection of 

explosives, which are unique to 

munitions manufacturing, in soil 

collected from the burn pit at the 

National Fireworks facility, 

demonstrating a lack of containment. 

The HRS documentation record at 

proposal outlines the specific rationale 

for attributing the groundwater 

contamination to the manufacturing of 

explosives during World War II. 

Attribution of at least some of the 

contamination detected in groundwater 

is supported by the identification of the 

same contaminants in groundwater that 

were in site sources and the detection of 

explosives, which are unique to 

munitions manufacturing, in soil 

collected from the burn pit at the 

National Fireworks facility. 

The EPA will be conducting 

additional sampling to determine the 

extent of the contamination. If 

additional source areas are discovered, 

as the third commenter insists, EPA will 

fully investigate and clean up those 

additional source areas. A subsequent 

stage of the Superfund process, the 

remedial investigation (RI), 

characterizes conditions and hazards at 

the site more comprehensively. 

Galey and Lord Plant: 

The EPA received a total of 16 

comments submitted by private citizens, 

the mayor of the Town of Society Hill, 

the governing body of Darlington 

County, and the owners of a local farm 

near the Galey and Lord Plant site. One 

additional comment was received in the 

docket but was intended for the 

Southeast Hennepin Area Groundwater 

and Vapor docket and supported listing 

of that site. One comment from the 

governing body of Darlington County in 

support of listing the site was received 

but was submitted to the Paden City 

Groundwater docket. Comments 

received did not oppose adding the 

Galey and Lord Plant site to the NPL. 

The mayor of the Town of Society Hill 

submitted a comment that expressed 

support for listing and concern for 

human health, wildlife, and waterways. 

Two private citizens and the owners of 

the local farm submitted comments 

regarding the health impacts associated 

with contamination from the Galey and 

Lord facility. One of the commenters 

expressed concern for impacts to the 

commenter’s health experienced 

directly following consumption of local 

well water. One comment from a private 

citizen on areas not a part of the site 

also included specific concerns 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
14810 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

regarding the impact of 

perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 

and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in 

groundwater. In addition to commenting 

on health impacts, the owners of the 

local farm expressed general concerns 

regarding the impact of contamination 

on its property and specific concern 

over the economic impact of the site and 

cleanup actions on its business. This 

commenter requested input about the 

party that initiated the cleanup process 

for this site. The South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control referred the 

Galey and Lord site to EPA for NPL 

consideration following an assessment 

of the plant site and the discovery of 

contamination in private drinking water 

wells near the fields where wastewater 

sludge from the plant was disposed of. 

Following listing, the EPA will be 

conducting additional sampling to 

determine the extent of the 

contamination, determine what actual 

risks are associated with the site, and 

take necessary actions to address any 

health impacts. A subsequent stage of 

the Superfund process, the remedial 

investigation (RI), characterizes 

conditions and hazards at the site more 

comprehensively. The EPA performs a 

comprehensive risk assessment for the 

site as part of further investigations that 

typically follow listing. The results of 

risk assessment activities will be 

considered during the evaluation of the 

need for remedial actions at the site. 

The EPA has contacted the concerned 

individual directly to address their 

specific health concerns. 

Regarding economic impacts, the EPA 

notes that there are both costs and 

benefits that can be associated with 

listing a site. Among the benefits are 

increased health and environmental 

protection as a result of increased public 

awareness of potential hazards. In 

addition to the potential for federally 

financed remedial actions, the addition 

of a site to the NPL could accelerate 

privately financed, voluntary cleanup 

efforts. Listing sites as national priority 

targets also may give states increased 

support for funding responses at 

particular sites. As a result of the 

additional CERCLA remedies, there will 

be lower human exposure to high-risk 

chemicals, and higher quality surface 

water, ground water, soil, and air. 

Therefore, it is possible that any 

perceived or actual negative fluctuations 

in property values or development 

opportunities that may result from 

contamination may also be countered by 

positive fluctuations when a CERCLA 

investigation and any necessary cleanup 

are completed. 

Bear Creek Sediments: 

The EPA received 13 comments on 

the Bear Creek Sediments site. One 

additional comment was received from 

a private citizen but was intended for 

the Paden City Groundwater docket. 

The 13 comments received, from 11 

private citizens and two non-profit 

organizations, expressed support for 

listing the site on the NPL. One 

commenter, a non-profit organization, 

requested that community engagement 

opportunities be available if the site is 

placed on the NPL. Another non-profit 

organization supported listing but 

included requests for further actions in 

its comment submission. The non-profit 

organization also submitted comments 

expressing environmental justice 

concerns. The non-profit organization 

made the following assertions regarding 

the contamination at the site: 

• Data from a 2016 report suggested 

that an ecological risk exists in Bear 

Creek, warranting remediation. 

• A decrease in total polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) 

concentrations with increasing distance 

from Sparrows Creek suggested that 

Sparrows Point influences PAH 

concentrations in that area. 

• Bear Creek contains elevated metals 

concentrations including chromium, 

zinc, copper, and cadmium. 

• Groundwater to surface water 

migration should be considered as a 

migration route for hazardous 

substances to Bear Creek due to the 

possible migration of contamination that 

appeared to occur via this route. 

• Offshore concentrations of 

dissolved constituents suggested that 

groundwater fluxes were migrating from 

onshore source areas. 

• The background levels should be 

withdrawn because locations upstream 

of Sparrows Point were not 

representative of background. 

• The three background sediment 

sample locations used in the HRS 

evaluation were not representative of 

background contamination, in part, due 

to the tidal influence impacting Bear 

Creek and the lack of identification of 

possible upstream contributors to the 

contamination. 

Following listing, the EPA will fully 

investigate the extent of contamination 

at the site. A subsequent stage of the 

Superfund process, the remedial 

investigation (RI), characterizes 

conditions and hazards at the site more 

comprehensively. The EPA noted in the 

HRS documentation record at proposal 

on the cover sheet that ‘‘[t]he NPL 

listing focuses solely on the releases to 

the Surface Water Migration Pathway 

into Bear Creek via Tin Mill Canal.’’ 

This same page of the HRS 

documentation record at proposal 

explains the rationale for why the 

ground migration pathway was not 

scored, indicating that it is not a 

pathway of concern because ground 

water was not used as drinking water 

within four miles of the site source (i.e., 

the Tin Mill Canal). 

The background levels and 

background sample locations presented 

in the HRS documentation record at 

proposal were appropriate for HRS 

scoring purposes. For HRS scoring, 

background samples are used to 

establish whether a release of 

contamination has occurred. The 

background sample locations are only 

used as a reference point to establish 

that a significant increase in 

contaminant levels in the downstream 

samples has occurred. Ideally, 

background samples are collected from 

an area outside of the influence of the 

contamination being evaluated, but with 

similar physical conditions. 

Accordingly, the area outside of the 

influence of the contamination used to 

represent background levels for HRS 

evaluation purposes may not necessarily 

coincide with natural background 

levels. For this site, samples from 

background locations upgradient of the 

contaminated samples ‘‘were used to 

establish background conditions and 

chemical compositions of the sediment 

materials upstream of the discharge 

point of [Tin Mill Canal].’’ Hence, the 

background level determination was 

consistent with the HRS and the site as 

preliminary defined for HRS scoring 

purposes (i.e., releases to Bear Creek 

from the Tin Mill Canal). 

Many sites on the NPL are located in 

environmental justice, minority and/or 

low-income communities. Through the 

cleanup of these sites, the Superfund 

program has sought to ensure that 

residents do not bear a disproportionate 

share of the negative environmental 

consequences resulting from past 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations, and that they 

have meaningful involvement in the 

decisions on how to clean up the site. 

Furthermore, as the site moves through 

the Superfund process, EPA will 

develop a community relations plan to 

ensure public involvement and 

participation in the cleanup. 

C. Clarification of Figure for Meeker 

Avenue Plume Site 

The EPA is providing a clarification to 

Figure 8 in the HRS Documentation 

Record for the Meeker Avenue Plume 

site. This figure provides the location of 

possible originating facilities of 

subsurface contamination. Figure 8 has 

been modified to include the Empire 

State Varnish Company located at 38 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14811 

Varick Street. The Empire State Varnish 

Company was identified as a possible 

originating facility in the supporting 

reference materials that provide the 

basis for Figure 8, but it was 

inadvertently omitted from that figure at 

proposal. EPA also notes that the facility 

was sufficiently identified as within the 

area of subsurface contamination as 

described in Figure 8 in the HRS 

documentation record at proposal. EPA 

is providing this clarification here to 

reflect that the facility is a possible 

originating facility of subsurface 

contamination at the Meeker Avenue 

Plume site. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/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. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not an Executive Order 

13771 regulatory action because this 

action is not significant under Executive 

Order 12866. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. This rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require approval of the OMB. 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. This rule listing sites on the 

NPL does not impose any obligations on 

any group, including small entities. This 

rule also does not establish standards or 

requirements that any small entity must 

meet and imposes no direct costs on any 

small entity. Whether an entity, small or 

otherwise, is liable for response costs for 

a release of hazardous substances 

depends on whether that entity is liable 

under CERCLA 107(a). Any such 

liability exists regardless of whether the 

site is listed on the NPL through this 

rulemaking. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. This action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

Listing a site on the NPL does not itself 

impose any costs. Listing does not mean 

that the EPA necessarily will undertake 

remedial action. Nor does listing require 

any action by a private party, state, local 

or tribal governments or determine 

liability for response costs. Costs that 

arise out of site responses result from 

future site-specific decisions regarding 

what actions to take, not directly from 

the act of placing a site on the NPL. 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL 

does not impose any costs on a tribe or 

require a tribe to take remedial action. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because this action itself is procedural 

in nature (adds sites to a list) and does 

not, in and of itself, provide protection 

from environmental health and safety 

risks. Separate future regulatory actions 

are required for mitigation of 

environmental health and safety risks. 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment. As 

discussed in Section I.C. of the 

preamble to this action, the NPL is a list 

of national priorities. The NPL is 

intended primarily to guide the EPA in 

determining which sites warrant further 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

of only limited significance as it does 

not assign liability to any party. Also, 

placing a site on the NPL does not mean 

that any remedial or removal action 

necessarily need be taken. 

L. Congressional Review Act 

This action is subject to the CRA, and 

the EPA will submit a rule report to 

each House of the Congress and to the 

Comptroller General of the United 

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

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

Provisions of the Congressional 

Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of 

CERCLA may alter the effective date of 

this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 

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

continue in effect, if Congress enacts 

(and the President signs) a joint 

resolution of disapproval, described 

under section 802. Another statutory 

provision that may affect this rule is 

CERCLA section 305, which provides 

for a legislative veto of regulations 

promulgated under CERCLA. Although 

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

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

University of Washington v. EPA, 86 

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

validity of the legislative veto into 

question, the EPA has transmitted a 

copy of this regulation to the Secretary 

of the Senate and the Clerk of the House 

of Representatives. 

If action by Congress under either the 

CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the 

effective date of this regulation into 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
14812 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

question, the EPA will publish a 

document of clarification in the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Natural 

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Barry N. Breen, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Land and Emergency Management. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 300, of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows: 

PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 

POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 

2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 

3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 

FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

■ 2. Amend appendix B of part 300 by: 

■ a. In Table 1, adding entries for ‘‘GA,’’ 

‘‘Westside Lead’’, ‘‘IN,’’ ‘‘North 5th 

Street Groundwater Contamination’’, 

‘‘MA,’’ ‘‘Lower Neponset River’’, ‘‘MD,’’ 

‘‘Bear Creek Sediments’’, ‘‘MI,’’ 

‘‘Michner Plating—Mechanic Street’’, 

‘‘MN,’’ ‘‘Southeast Hennepin Area 

Groundwater and Vapor’’, ‘‘NY,’’ 

‘‘Meeker Avenue Plume’’, ‘‘SC,’’ ‘‘Galey 

and Lord Plant’’, ‘‘TN,’’ ‘‘National 

Fireworks’’, ‘‘WI,’’ ‘‘Unity Auto Mart’’, 

and ‘‘WV,’’ ‘‘Paden City Groundwater’’ 

in alphabetical order by state; and 

■ b. In Table 2, adding the entry for 

‘‘OR,’’ ‘‘Bradford Island’’ in alphabetical 

order by state. 

The additions read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes a

*******

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

MI ...................... Michner Plating—Mechanic Street .......................................................... Jackson.

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

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). 

* * * * * 

TABLE 2—FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes a

*******

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


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 51 / Wednesday, March 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 14813 

TABLE 2—FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION—Continued 

State Site name City/county Notes a

*******

******* 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. 2022–05397 Filed 3–15–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1