Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 172 / Thursday, September 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50477 

owner, operator, and/or other 

responsible party of [the] petroleum 

UST system for the cost of generating 

duplicate data,’’ insofar as this text 

pertains to the State Fund. 

(8) 0400–18–01–.06(3)(f), insofar as it 

provides eligibility requirements for the 

State Fund. 

(9) 0400–18–01–.06(7)(c), insofar as it 

provides for reimbursement from the 

State Fund. 

(10) Appendix 0400–18–01–.07–A, as 

to the text ‘‘transport and’’ in (4)(a) and 

(4)(e), insofar as these provisions pertain 

to the transportation of a tank. 

(11) 0400–18–01–.08(5)(a) and (b), 

insofar as these provisions establish 

eligibility requirements for the State 

Fund. 

(12) 0400–18–01–.09(1) through (16), 

insofar as these provisions regulate 

disbursements, coverage, and fund 

eligibility regarding the State Fund and 

provide for approval of corrective action 

contractors and recovery of State costs. 

(13) 0400–18–01–.09(18) is external 

insofar as it pertains to the severability 

of the rule. 

(14) 0400–18–01–.10, insofar as it 

establishes a system and schedule for 

the collection of fees under the UST 

Act. 

(15) 0400–18–01–.12(3), insofar as it 

establishes eligibility requirements for 

the State Fund. 

(16) 0400–18–01–.12(4), insofar as it 

pertains to the payment of annual tank 

fees. 

(17) 0400–18–01–.14 is external 

insofar as it contains record retention 

obligations on the State agency, not a 

regulated entity. 

(2) Statement of legal authority. The 

Attorney General’s Statement, signed on 

October 3, 2018, though not 

incorporated by reference, is referenced 

as part of the approved underground 

storage tank program under subtitle I of 

RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq. 

(3) Demonstration of procedures for 

adequate enforcement. The 

‘‘Demonstration of Adequate 

Enforcement Procedures’’ submitted on 

October 15, 2018, though not 

incorporated by reference, is referenced 

as part of the approved underground 

storage tank program under subtitle I of 

RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et seq. 

(4) Program description. The program 

description and any other material 

submitted on October 15, 2018, though 

not incorporated by reference, are 

referenced as part of the approved 

underground storage tank program 

under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6991 

et seq. 

(5) Memorandum of Agreement. The 

Memorandum of Agreement between 

EPA Region 4 and TDEC, signed by the 

EPA Regional Administrator on October 

12, 2018, though not incorporated by 

reference, is referenced as part of the 

approved underground storage tank 

program under subtitle I of RCRA, 42 

U.S.C. 6991 et seq. 

■ 3. Amend appendix A to part 282 by 

revising the entry for Tennessee to read 

as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 282—State 

Requirements Incorporated by 

Reference in Part 282 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations 

* * * * * 

Tennessee 

(A) The statutory provisions include: 

Tennessee Petroleum Underground Storage 

Tank Act (the UST Act) of 1988, Tenn. Code 

Ann. sections 68–215–101 to 68–215–204 

(2018): 

68–215–101 Short Title. 

68–215–103 Definitions, except 

(17)(A)(iii) and (iv). 

68–215–104 Prohibitions, except (3) and 

(4). 

68–215–105 Minimum standards. 

68–215–106 Notice; certificates and 

certification; except (a)(6), (b)(1), (b)(2), and 

(c) through (f). 

68–215–107 Supervision; orders; 

enforcement; rules and regulations; except (a) 

through (g)(1). 

68–215–110 Fund; environmental 

assurance fee; except (b) through (h). 

68–215–112 Repealed. 

68–215–113 Repealed. 

68–215–124 Exemptions. 

68–215–128 Obsolete. 

68–215–130 Repealed. 

68–215–201 Definitions. 

68–215–202 Ownership of petroleum site 

or petroleum underground storage tank or 

property on which a petroleum site or 

petroleum underground tank is located. 

68–215–203 Operation prior to and after 

foreclosure. 

68–215–204 Participation in the 

management. 

(B) The regulatory provisions include: 

Tennessee’s Underground Storage Tank 

Regulations, Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0400– 

18–01–.01 to .17 (2018): 

0400–18–01–.01 Program Scope, 

Definitions, and Proprietary Information 

Applicability; except (4)1.(iii) and (iv) of the 

definition for ‘‘Responsible party’’ and (5). 

0400–18–01–.02 UST Systems: 

Installation and Operation; except (1)(a)2. 

and (4)(c)6.(ii)(II)IV. 

0400–18–01–.03 Notifications, Reporting, 

and Record Keeping. 

0400–18–01–.04 Release Detection; 

except (1)(e). 

0400–18–01–.05 Release Reporting, 

Investigation, and Confirmation; except (1)(b) 

and (c). 

0400–18–01–.06 Petroleum Release 

Response, Remediation, and Risk 

Management; except for the text ‘‘The fund 

shall not reimburse the owner, operator, and/ 

or other responsible party of petroleum UST 

system for the cost of generating duplicate 

data’’ in (2)(b)1. Also, except (3)(f), (7)(c), and 

(11)(b) and (c). 

0400–18–01–.07 Out-of-Service UST 

Systems and Closure; as to Appendix 0400– 

18–01–.07–A, except for the text ‘‘transport 

and’’ in (4)(a). Also, except (4)(e). 

0400–18–01–.08 Financial Responsibility; 

except (5)(a), (5)(b), (20), and (21). 

0400–18–01–.12 Indicia of Ownership; 

except (3) and (4). 

0400–18–01–.13 Reserved. 

0400–18–01–.16 Certified Operator 

Program. 

0400–18–01–.17 UST Systems with FieldConstructed Tanks and Airport Hydrant 

Systems. 

(C) Copies of the Tennessee statutes and 

regulations that are incorporated by reference 

are available from the Tennessee Department 

of Environment and Conservation, Division 

of Underground Storage Tanks, William R. 

Snodgrass Tennessee Tower, 12th Floor, 312 

Rosa L. Parks Ave., Nashville, TN 37243; 

Phone number: (615) 532–0730; website: 

https://www.tn.gov/environment/programareas/ust-underground-storage-tanks/ust/actrules-and-policies.html. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–19339 Filed 9–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–OLEM–2020–0394, 0395, 0396 

and 0397; FRL–8887–01–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 four sites to 

the General Superfund section of the 

NPL. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
50478 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 172 / Thursday, September 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

DATES: The document is effective on 

October 12, 2021. 

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. 

• James Desir, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, 

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

York, NY 10007–1866; 212/637–4342. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

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. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

J. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

L. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

A. What are CERCLA and SARA? 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

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

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

uncontrolled releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, and 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant that may present an 

imminent or substantial danger to the 

public health or welfare. CERCLA was 

amended on October 17, 1986, by the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’), Public 

Law 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq. 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 172 / Thursday, September 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50479 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is 

of only limited significance, however, as 

it does not assign liability to any party 

or to the owner of any specific property. 

Also, placing a site on the NPL does not 

mean that any remedial or removal 

action necessarily need be taken. 

For purposes of listing, the NPL 

includes two sections, one of sites that 

are generally evaluated and cleaned up 

by the EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund 

section’’) and one of sites that are 

owned or operated by other Federal 

agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities 

section’’). With respect to sites in the 

Federal Facilities section, these sites are 

generally being addressed by other 

Federal agencies. Under Executive 

Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 

1987) and CERCLA section 120, each 

Federal agency is responsible for 

carrying out most response actions at 

facilities under its own jurisdiction, 

custody or control, although the EPA is 

responsible for preparing a Hazard 

Ranking System (‘‘HRS’’) score and 

determining whether the facility is 

placed on the NPL. 

D. How are sites listed on the NPL? 

There are three mechanisms for 

placing sites on the NPL for possible 

remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) 

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

on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high 

on the HRS, which the EPA 

promulgated as appendix A of the NCP 

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

screening tool to evaluate the relative 

potential of uncontrolled hazardous 

substances, pollutants or contaminants 

to pose a threat to human health or the 

environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 

FR 51532), the EPA promulgated 

revisions to the HRS partly in response 

to CERCLA section 105(c), added by 

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

a subsurface intrusion component was 

added to the HRS to enable the EPA to 

consider human exposure to hazardous 

substances or pollutants and 

contaminants that enter regularly 

occupied structures through subsurface 

intrusion when evaluating sites for the 

NPL. The current HRS evaluates four 

pathways: Ground water, surface water, 

soil exposure and subsurface intrusion, 

and air. As a matter of agency policy, 

those sites that score 28.50 or greater on 

the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) 

Each state may designate a single site as 

its top priority to be listed on the NPL, 

without any HRS score. This provision 

of CERCLA requires that, to the extent 

practicable, the NPL include one facility 

designated by each state as the greatest 

danger to public health, welfare or the 

environment among known facilities in 

the state. This mechanism for listing is 

set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 

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

for listing, included in the NCP at 40 

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

to be listed without any HRS score, if all 

of the following conditions are met: 

• The Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the 

U.S. Public Health Service has issued a 

health advisory that recommends 

dissociation of individuals from the 

release. 

• The EPA determines that the release 

poses a significant threat to public 

health. 

• The EPA anticipates that it will be 

more cost-effective to use its remedial 

authority than to use its removal 

authority to respond to the release. 

The EPA promulgated an original NPL 

of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 

40658) and generally has updated it at 

least annually. 

E. What happens to sites on the NPL? 

A site may undergo remedial action 

financed by the Trust Fund established 

under CERCLA (commonly referred to 

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

placed on the NPL, as provided in the 

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

(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those 

‘‘consistent with a permanent remedy, 

taken instead of or in addition to 

removal actions’’ (40 CFR 300.5).) 

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

placing a site on the NPL ‘‘does not 

imply that monies will be expended.’’ 

The EPA may pursue other appropriate 

authorities to respond to the releases, 

including enforcement action under 

CERCLA and other laws. 

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries 

of sites? 

The NPL does not describe releases in 

precise geographical terms; it would be 

neither feasible nor consistent with the 

limited purpose of the NPL (to identify 

releases that are priorities for further 

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

precise nature and extent of the site are 

typically not known at the time of 

listing. 

Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is 

broadly defined to include any area 

where a hazardous substance has ‘‘come 

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

the listing process itself is not intended 

to define or reflect the boundaries of 

such facilities or releases. Of course, 

HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a 

site) upon which the NPL placement 

was based will, to some extent, describe 

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

site would include all releases evaluated 

as part of that HRS analysis. 

When a site is listed, the approach 

generally used to describe the relevant 

release(s) is to delineate a geographical 

area (usually the area within an 

installation or plant boundaries) and 

identify the site by reference to that 

area. However, the NPL site is not 

necessarily coextensive with the 

boundaries of the installation or plant, 

and the boundaries of the installation or 

plant are not necessarily the 

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

consists of all contaminated areas 

within the area used to identify the site, 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
50480 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 172 / Thursday, September 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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, Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

(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/aboutsuperfund-cleanup-process#reuse. 

K. What is state/tribal correspondence 

concerning NPL listing? 

In order to maintain close 

coordination with states and tribes in 

the NPL listing decision process, the 

EPA’s policy is to determine the 

position of the states and tribes 

regarding sites that the EPA is 

considering for listing. This 

consultation process is outlined in two 

memoranda that can be found at the 

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

superfund/statetribal-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. 

Cherokee Zinc—Weir Smelter ..................................... Weir, KS ...................................................................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2020–0394 

Billings PCE ................................................................. Billings, MT .................................................................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2020–0395 

Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc ......................................... Franklinville, NJ ........................................................... EPA–HQ–OLEM–2020–0396 

Northwest Odessa Groundwater ................................. Odessa, TX ................................................................. EPA–HQ–OLEM–2020–0397 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 172 / Thursday, September 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50481 

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 four 

sites to the General Superfund section of 

the NPL. 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 

KS ................................. Cherokee Zinc—Weir Smelter ............................................................................................................ Weir. 

MT ................................. Billings PCE ........................................................................................................................................ Billings. 

NJ .................................. Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc ................................................................................................................ Franklinville. 

TX ................................. Northwest Odessa Groundwater ........................................................................................................ Odessa. 

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 four sites to the NPL 

in this final rule. All four sites were 

proposed for addition to the NPL on 

September 3, 2020 (85 FR 54970). 

The EPA received two comments on 

the proposal of the Cherokee Zinc-Weir 

Smelter site. One of the commenters 

indicated that they would like to see 

liability for cleanup assigned at the 

listing stage and questions the addition 

of liability concerns to the Superfund 

NPL process. Liability is not considered 

in evaluating a site under the HRS. The 

NPL serves primarily as an 

informational tool for use by the EPA in 

identifying those sites that appear to 

present a significant risk to public 

health or the environment. Listing a site 

on the NPL does not reflect a judgment 

on the activities of the owner(s) or 

operator(s) of a site. It does not require 

those persons to undertake any action, 

nor does it assign any liability to any 

person. This position, stated in the 

legislative history of CERCLA, has been 

explained more fully in the Federal 

Register (48 FR 40658, September 8, 

1983, and 53 FR 23988, June 24, 1988). 

In addition to the comment regarding 

liability, there was one comment that is 

not related to the proposal of the site. 

The EPA received one comment on 

the Billings PCE site regarding the site 

address and description of the site. The 

commenter asserted that the site address 

appeared limited to the Big Sky Linen 

facility despite the multiple possible 

sources identified in supporting 

material. The commenter stated that the 

EPA should revise the HRS 

documentation record and the site 

summary to reflect the multiple possible 

sources of contamination associated 

with the site. The EPA has revised the 

street address for the Billings PCE site 

at promulgation to the intersection of 

3rd St. W and Miles Ave., Billings, 

Montana, the approximate center of the 

area of observed exposure. The EPA has 

also revised the HRS documentation 

record at promulgation to include the 

new site address. 

Additionally, while not commented 

on, the EPA noted that the 

trichloroethylene benchmark 

concentrations shown in HRS 

documentation record Table 17 contain 

truncated values and are inconsistent 

with those documented in Reference 2 

of the HRS supporting documentation. 

The EPA has revised the HRS 

documentation record at promulgation 

to: Include the corrected benchmark 

concentrations in Table 17; remove from 

Table 17 3 samples whose 

trichloroethylene concentrations fall 

below the corrected benchmarks; and 

adjust the Level I concentrations, Level 

II concentrations, and population factor 

values and targets factor category value 

accordingly. Based on these corrections, 

the subsurface intrusion component 

score and HRS site score remain 

unchanged. 

The EPA received one comment on 

the Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc site 

expressing concern for environmental 

justice and air pollution impacts on 

minority communities but did not 

express support or opposition to listing 

the site. 

The EPA received two comments 

supporting the listing of the Northwest 

Odessa Groundwater site, with one 

commenter expressing concerns 

regarding the health impacts of the 

plume and the other expressing concern 

that the groundwater plume is spreading 

and impacting nearby mixed 

commercial and residential areas. One 

additional comment was a duplicate of 

the comment submitted on the Pioneer 

Metal Finishing Inc 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
50482 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 172 / Thursday, September 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (CRA) 

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 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: August 31, 2021. 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 172 / Thursday, September 9, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 50483 

■ 2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 

is amended by adding the entries for 

‘‘KS,’’ ‘‘Cherokee Zinc—Weir Smelter’’, 

‘‘MT,’’ ‘‘Billings PCE’’, ‘‘NJ,’’ ‘‘Pioneer 

Metal Finishing Inc’’, and ‘‘TX’’, 

‘‘Northwest Odessa Groundwater’’ in 

alphabetical order by state to read as 

follows: 

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List 

TABLE 1—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes a

*******

KS ............................... Cherokee Zinc—Weir Smelter ......................... Weir.

*******

MT ............................... Billings PCE ..................................................... Billings.

*******

NJ ................................ Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc ............................. Franklinville.

*******

TX ................................ Northwest Odessa Groundwater ..................... Odessa.

*******

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. 2021–19193 Filed 9–8–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1