[Federal Register: December 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 64709-64710]
[DOCID:fr08de09-46]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2009-0988]

Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting; request for applications.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces a Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory
Committee (GLPAC) meeting and seeks applications to fill two vacancies
on the GLPAC. GLPAC provides advice and makes recommendations to the
Secretary on a wide range of issues related to pilotage on the Great
Lakes, including the rules and regulations that govern the
registration, operating requirements, and training policies for all
U.S. registered pilots. The Committee also advises on matters related
to ratemaking to determine the appropriate charge for pilot services on
the Great Lakes.

DATES: GLPAC will meet on Thursday, January 21, 2010, from 9 a.m. to
12:30 p.m. The meeting may close early if all business is finished.
Written material and requests to make oral presentations or to have a
copy of your material distributed to each member of the committee
should reach us on or before January 7, 2010. Completed applications
for GLPAC membership should reach us by January 7, 2010, but will be
accepted until the positions are filled.

ADDRESSES: GLPAC will meet at Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 2nd
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001, Room 51310. Send written
material and requests relating to the GLPAC meeting to Mr. John Bobb
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Electronically submitted
material must be in Adobe or Microsoft Word format. Send applications
for GLPAC membership to Mr. Bobb. An application form for GLPAC
membership, as well as this notice, is available in our online docket,
USCG-2009-0988, at http://www.regulations.gov; enter the docket number
for this notice (USCG-2009-0988) in the Search box, and click ``Go.''
You may also contact Mr. Bobb for a copy of the application form.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Bobb, GLPAC Assistant
Designated Federal Official (ADFO), Commandant (CG-54121), U.S. Coast
Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street, SW., Stop 7581, Washington, DC
20593-7581; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The GLPAC is a Federal advisory committee
under 5 U.S.C. App. 2 (Pub. L. 92-463). It was established under the
authority of 46 U.S.C. 9307, and advises the Secretary of Homeland
Security and the Coast Guard on Great Lakes pilot registration,
operating requirements, training policies, and pilotage rates.
    GLPAC meets at least once a year, normally at Coast Guard
Headquarters, Washington, DC. It may also meet for extraordinary
purposes. Further information about GLPAC is available by searching on
``Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee'' at http://www.fido.gov/
facadatabase/.

Notice of Meeting

    GLPAC will hold a meeting at Coast Guard Headquarters on January
21, 2010.
    The agenda includes the following:
    (1) GLPAC review of public comments solicited by the Coast Guard in
the Federal Register of July 21, 2009 (``Great Lakes Pilotage
Ratemaking Methodology,'' 74 FR 35838), in accordance with requirements
of 46 U.S.C. 9307(d) for consultation with GLPAC before taking any
significant action relating to Great Lakes pilotage; and
    (2) Appointment of seventh member in compliance with requirements
of 46 U.S.C. 9307(b)(2)(E). Applications for this position were
solicited in a Federal Register notice published August 26, 2009 (74 FR
43148) and will be accepted until the position is filled.
    The meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may
close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion,
members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Mr. John Bobb (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) as soon as
possible.

Request for Applications

    One appointment will be made from applicants representing the
interests of vessel operators that contract for Great Lake pilotage
services. A second member will be selected to represent shippers whose
cargoes are transported through Great Lakes ports. To be eligible,
applicants should have particular expertise, knowledge, and experience
regarding the regulations and policies on the pilotage of vessels on
the Great Lakes, and at least 5 years

practical experience in maritime operations. GLPAC members serve for a
term of 3 years and may be reappointed. All members serve at their own
expense but receive reimbursement for travel and per diem expenses from
the Federal Government.
    In support of the Coast Guard policy on gender and ethnic
nondiscrimination, we encourage qualified men and women and members of
all racial and ethnic groups to apply. The Coast Guard values
diversity, which includes persons with different characteristics and
attributes who will enhance the mission of the Coast Guard.

    Dated: November 30, 2009.
W.A. Muilenburg,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Waterways Management.
[FR Doc. E9-29125 Filed 12-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 209)]
[Notices]
[Page 63307-63309]
[DOCID:fr30oc06-77]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. CP06-452-000]

Trunkline Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Field Zone Expansion Project
and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

October 24, 2006.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of constructing and operating
Trunkline Gas Company LLC's (Trunkline) proposed Field Zone Expansion
Project.
    The Field Zone Expansion Project would include the abandonment,
removal, relocation, installation, modification, construction and
operation of natural gas pipeline facilities in Texas, Louisiana and
Illinois to increase the capacity of Trunkline's existing pipeline
system and allow for the flow of natural gas from expanding gas
production in Texas to delivery points in Louisiana. Specifically,
Trunkline is seeking authority to undertake the following activities:

Texas and Louisiana

     Construct the 45-mile-long 36-inch-diameter NTX Line 100-2
Loop natural gas pipeline and associated facilities from the Gate Valve
43 in Jasper County, Texas to the Longville Meter Station in Beauregard
Parish, Louisiana, running through Jasper and Newton Counties, Texas
and Beauregard Parish, Louisiana.

Texas

     Construct a metering station in Hardin County, Texas;
     Construct a metering station in either Hardin or Jasper
Counties, Texas;
     Construct a metering station in Liberty County, Texas; and
     Replace by abandonment a 6,350-horsepower (hp) gas-turbine
centrifugal compressor unit with a new 10,350-hp electric motor-driven
compressor unit for a total of 10,350-hp of compression at the Kountze
Compressor Station in Hardin County, Texas.

Louisiana

     Construct approximately 13.5 miles of 36-inch-diameter
natural gas pipeline, known as the Henry Hub Lateral and associated
facilities in Vermilion Parish, Louisiana;
     Construct two bi-directional metering stations in
Vermilion Parish, Louisiana;
     Relocate two 3,000-hp compressor units from the
Centerville Compressor Station to the Kaplan Compressor Station in
Vermilion Parish, Louisiana; and
     Install a 10,350-hp compressor unit at the Longview
Compressor Station in Beauregard Parish, Louisiana.

Illinois

     Remove a 3,000-hp compressor unit at the Joppa Compressor
Station in Massac County, Illinois; modify it and uprate to 5,100-hp,
and then re-install it at the Kaplan Compressor Station in Louisiana.
    A map depicting Trunkline's proposed facilities is provided in
Appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not be printed
in the Federal Register. Copies are available on the Commission's
Web site (excluding maps) at http://www.ferc.gov or from the

Commission's Public Reference Room--(202) 502-8371.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Construction of these facilities would require the temporary use of
approximately 800 acres of land. Operation of these facilities would
require the permanent use of approximately 300 acres of land.
Approximately 500 acres of land would not be permanently affected by
operation of these facilities and would be restored and/or allowed to
revert to their previous use.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a Trunkline representative about the acquisition of an easement to
support this project. Trunkline would seek to negotiate a mutually
acceptable agreement for any easement; however, if the project is
approved by the Commission, this approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain. If easement negotiations between you and Trunkline
fail, it would have the authority to initiate condemnation proceedings.
    A fact sheet prepared by the Commission entitled ``An Interstate
Natural Gas Facility on my Land? What do I need to know?'' should have
been attached to the project notice provided to landowners by
Trunkline. This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet is also available
online at http://www.ferc.gov.

The Environmental Assessment Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to

consider the environmental impacts of a proposed project whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity as has been requested by Trunkline. NEPA also requires the
Commission to undertake a process to identify and address concerns the
public may have about proposed projects. This process is commonly
referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of the ``scoping'' process is
to identify public concerns and then address them in the environmental
assessment. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission requests public
comments on environmental issues that should be addressed in the
environmental assessment.
    The Commission's staff will prepare an environmental assessment
that will discuss the potential environmental impacts resulting from
the proposed project under the following general headings:
     Geology and Soils.
     Water Resources and Wetlands.
     Fisheries, Vegetation and Wildlife.
     Threatened and Endangered Species.
     Air Quality and Noise.
     Land Use.
     Cultural Resources.
     Pipeline safety and reliability.
    The Commission's staff will also evaluate possible alternatives to
the proposed project or portions of the project and make
recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts to the identified
environmental resources.
    Upon completion of the staff's environmental assessment and
depending on the issues identified and/or comments received during the
``scoping'' process, the EA may be published and mailed to Federal,
State and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental
and public interest groups; affected landowners; other interested
parties; local libraries and newspapers; and the Commission's official
service list for this proceeding. A 30-day comment period would be
allotted for review of the EA if it is published. Staff would consider
all comments submitted concerning the EA before making their
recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section of this notice.
    Federal, state, or local agencies wishing to participate in the
development of the environmental assessment may request ``cooperating
agency'' status. Cooperating agencies are encouraged to participate in
the scoping process and provide us with written comments concerning the
proposed project. Cooperating agencies are also welcome to suggest
format and content changes that will make it easier for them to adopt
the EA; however, we will decide what modifications will be adopted in
light of our production constraints. Agencies wanting to participate as
a cooperating agency should send a letter describing the extent to
which they would like to be involved in the development of this EA.
Please submit these letters as indicated in the public participation
section of this notice.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the proposed project. By becoming a
commentor, your comments and concerns will be addressed in the EA and
considered by the Commission. The more specific your comments, the more
useful they will be. Generally, comments are submitted regarding the
potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives and measures
to avoid or lessen environmental impact.
    This notice and request for environmental comments is being sent to
affected landowners; Federal, State and local government
representatives and agencies; environmental and public interest groups;
other interested parties in this proceeding; and local libraries and
newspapers. We encourage government representatives to notify their
constituents of this notice and to encourage their comments concerning
this proposed project.
    To ensure that your comments are properly recorded, please mail
them to our office on or before November 27, 2006. When filing comments
please:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of your comments to the attention of Gas
Branch 2, DG2E; and Reference Docket No. CP06-452-000 on the original
and both copies.
    Please note that the Commission encourages the electronic filing of
comments. To file electronic comments online please see the
instructions \2\ on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov.

When filing electronic comments, prepare your submission in the same
manner as you would if filing on paper and save it to a file on your
hard drive. Please note before you can file electronic comments with
the Commission you will need to create a free online account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort has been made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities that might be interested in and/
or potentially affected by the proposed project. This includes all
landowners who are potential right-of-way grantors, landowners whose
property may be used temporarily for project purposes, and landowners
with homes within distances defined in the Commission's regulations of
certain aboveground facilities.
    If you would like to remain on the environmental mailing list for
this proposed project, please return the Mailing List Retention Form
found in Appendix 2. If you do not comment on this project or return
this form, you will be taken off of the staff's environmental mailing
list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding, an ``intervenor''. To
become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to
Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically
submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov.

Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies
of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address
indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before
the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to
the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted
after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all
other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding. Persons on the service list with e-mail addresses may be
served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Availability of Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the

Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC (3372) or
through the Commission's ``eLibrary'' which can be found online at
http://www.ferc.gov. For assistance with the Commission's ``eLibrary'',

the helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
    In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm
.

    If applicable, public meetings or site visits associated with this
proposed project will be posted on the Commission's calendar which can
be found online at http://www.ferc.[fxsp0]gov/Event[fxsp0]Calendar/

EventsList.aspx.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-18138 Filed 10-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 598-600]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33259]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63620; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-122]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending the
Operation of Its New Market Model Pilot, Until the Earlier of
Securities and Exchange Commission Approval To Make Such Pilot
Permanent or August 1, 2011

December 29, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 17, 2010, NYSE Amex LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Amex'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its New Market
Model Pilot, currently scheduled to expire on January 31, 2011, until
the earlier of Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') approval to make such pilot permanent or August 1,
2011. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange, the

Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of its New Market
Model Pilot (``NMM Pilot'') that was adopted pursuant to its merger
with the New York Stock Exchange LLC.\3\ The NMM Pilot was approved to
operate until October 1, 2009. The Exchange filed to extend the
operation of the Pilot to November 30, 2009, March 30, 2010, September
30, 2010 and January 31, 2011, respectively.\4\ The Exchange now seeks
to extend the operation of the NMM Pilot, currently scheduled to expire
on January 31, 2011, until the earlier of Commission approval to make
such pilot permanent or August 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NYSE Euronext acquired The Amex Membership Corporation
(``AMC'') pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated January
17, 2008 (the ``Merger''). In connection with the Merger, the
Exchange's predecessor, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''),
a subsidiary of AMC, became a subsidiary of NYSE Euronext called
NYSE Alternext US LLC. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58673
(September 29, 2008), 73 FR 57707 (October 3, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-60
and SR-Amex-2008-62) (approving the Merger). Subsequently NYSE
Alternext US LLC was renamed NYSE Amex LLC and continues to operate
as a national securities exchange registered under Section 6 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act''). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59575 (March 13, 2009), 74 FR
11803 (March 19, 2009) (SR-NYSEALTR-2009-24).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60758 (October 1,
2009), 74 FR 51639 (October 7, 2009) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-65). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 61030 (November 19, 2009), 74
FR 62365 (November 27, 2009) (SR-NYSEAmex-2009-83); and 61725 (March
17, 2010), 75 FR 14223 (March 24, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-28);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62820 (September 1, 2010), 75 FR
54935 (September 9, 2010) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-86).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that parallel changes are proposed to be made to
the rules of New York Stock Exchange LLC.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See SR-NYSE-2010-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The information contained herein is a summary of the NMM
Pilot. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58845 (October 24,
2008), 73 FR 64379 (October 29, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-46) for a fuller
description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2008, NYSE Amex implemented significant changes to its
market rules, execution technology and the rights and obligations of
its market participants all of which were designed to improve execution
quality on the Exchange. These changes are all elements of the
Exchange's enhanced market model that it implemented through the NMM
Pilot.
    As part of the NMM Pilot, NYSE Amex eliminated the function of
specialists on the Exchange creating a new category of market
participant, the Designated Market Maker or DMM.\7\ The DMMs, like
specialists, have affirmative obligations to make an orderly market,
including continuous quoting requirements and obligations to re-enter
the market when reaching across to execute against trading interest.
Unlike specialists, DMMs have a minimum quoting requirement \8\ in
their assigned securities and no longer have a negative obligation.
DMMs are also no longer agents for public customer orders.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NYSE Amex Equities Rule 103.
    \8\ See NYSE Amex Equities Rule 104.
    \9\ See NYSE Amex Equities Rule 60; see also NYSE Amex Equities
Rules 104 and 1000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange implemented a system change that allowed
DMMs to create a schedule of additional non-displayed liquidity at
various price points where the DMM is willing to interact with interest
and provide price improvement to orders in the Exchange's system. This
schedule is known as the DMM Capital Commitment Schedule (``CCS'').\10\
CCS provides the Display Book[reg] \11\ with the amount of shares that
the DMM is willing to trade at price points outside, at and inside the
Exchange Best Bid or Best Offer (``BBO''). CCS interest is separate and
distinct from other DMM interest in that it serves as the interest of
last resort.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NYSE Amex Equities Rule 1000.
    \11\ The Display Book system is an order management and
execution facility. The Display Book system receives and displays
orders to the DMMs, contains the order information, and provides a
mechanism to execute and report transactions and publish the results
to the Consolidated Tape. The Display Book system is connected to a
number of other Exchange systems for the purposes of comparison,
surveillance, and reporting information to customers and other
market data and national market systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NMM Pilot further modified the logic for allocating executed
shares among market participants having trading interest at a price
point upon execution of incoming orders. The modified logic rewards
displayed orders that establish the Exchange's BBO. During the
operation of the NMM Pilot orders, or portions thereof, that establish
priority \12\ retain that priority until the portion of the order that
established priority is exhausted. Where no one order has established
priority, shares are distributed among all market participants on
parity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NYSE Amex Equities Rule 72(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NMM Pilot was originally scheduled to end operation on October
1, 2009, or such earlier time as the Commission may determine to make
the rules permanent. The Exchange filed to extend the operation of the
Pilot on four occasions \13\ in order to prepare a rule filing seeking
permission to make the above described changes permanent. The Exchange
is currently still preparing such formal submission but does not expect
that filing to be completed and approved by the Commission before
January 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra note 2 [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal To Extend the Operation of the NMM Pilot
    NYSE Amex established the NMM Pilot to provide incentives for
quoting, to enhance competition among the existing group of liquidity
providers and add a new competitive market participant. The Exchange
believes that the NMM Pilot allows the Exchange to provide its market
participants with a trading venue that utilizes an enhanced market
structure to encourage the addition of liquidity, facilitate the
trading of larger orders more efficiently and operates to reward
aggressive liquidity providers. As such, the Exchange believes that the
rules governing the NMM Pilot should be made permanent. Through this
filing the Exchange seeks to extend the current operation of the NMM
Pilot until August 1, 2011, in order to allow the Exchange time to
formally submit a filing to the Commission to convert the pilot rules
to permanent rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
that an exchange have rules that are designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes

that the instant filing is consistent with these principles because the
NMM Pilot provides its market participants with a trading venue that
utilizes an enhanced market structure to encourage the addition of
liquidity, facilitate the trading of larger orders more efficiently and
operates to reward aggressive liquidity providers. Moreover, the
instant filing requesting an extension of the NMM Pilot will permit
adequate time for: (i) The Exchange to prepare and submit a filing to
make the rules governing the NMM Pilot permanent; (ii) public notice
and comment; and (iii) completion of the 19b-4 approval process.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-122 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-122. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange.\16\ All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEAmex-2010-122 and should be submitted on or before January 26,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-33259 Filed 1-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22993-22994]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09631]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9926-82-OA]

Notification of a Public Meeting of the Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC) Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review
Panel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public meeting of the Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Oxides of Nitrogen Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Review Panel to peer
review EPA's Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides of
Nitrogen--Health Criteria (Second External Review Draft--January 2015)
and Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen
Dioxide: Risk and Exposure Assessment Planning Document.

DATES: The CASAC Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review Panel meeting
will be on Tuesday, June 2, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. (Eastern
Standard Time) and on Wednesday, June 3, 2015 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).
    Location: The public meeting will be held at the DoubleTree by
Hilton Hotel Raleigh-Brownstone-University, 1707 Hillsborough Street,
Raleigh, North Carolina.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing to
obtain information concerning the public meeting may contact Mr. Aaron
Yeow, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board
Staff Office (1400R), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; by telephone/voice mail
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information about
the CASAC, as well as any updates concerning the meeting announced in
this notice, may be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/casac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CASAC was established pursuant to the
Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C.
7409(d)(2), to review air quality criteria and NAAQS and recommend any
new NAAQS and revisions of existing criteria and NAAQS as may be
appropriate. The CASAC shall also provide advice, information, and
recommendations to the Administrator on the scientific and technical
aspects of issues related to the criteria for air quality standards,
research related to air quality, sources of air pollution, and of
adverse effects which may result from various strategies to attain and
maintain air quality standards. The CASAC is a Federal Advisory
Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5
U.S.C., App. 2. Section 109(d)(1) of the CAA requires that the Agency
periodically review and revise, as appropriate, the air quality
criteria and the NAAQS for the six ``criteria'' air pollutants,
including oxides of nitrogen. EPA is currently reviewing the primary
(health-based) NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) as an
indicator for health effects caused by the presence of oxides of
nitrogen in the ambient air.
    Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the
CASAC Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review Panel will hold a public
meeting to peer review EPA's Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Oxides of Nitrogen--Health Criteria (Second External Review Draft--
January 2015) and Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Nitrogen Dioxide: Risk and Exposure Assessment Planning Document.
The CASAC Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review Panel and the CASAC
will comply with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff
Office procedural policies.
    The CASAC Oxides of Nitrogen Primary NAAQS Review Panel previously
peer reviewed EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of
Nitrogen--Health Criteria (External Review Draft--November 2013) as
reported in a letter to the EPA Administrator, dated June 10, 2014
(EPA-CASAC-14-002).
    Technical Contacts: Any technical questions concerning the
Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen--Health Criteria
(Second External Review Draft--January 2015)

should be directed to Dr. Molini Patel (patel.molini@epa.gov), EPA
Office of Research and Development, and technical questions concerning
the Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen
Dioxide: Risk and Exposure Assessment Planning Document should be
directed to Dr. Scott Jenkins (jenkins.scott@epa.gov), EPA Office of
Air and Radiation.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review
documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible through the
calendar link on the blue navigation bar at http://www.epa.gov/casac/.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office.
    Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific
advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the
public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider
as it develops advice for EPA. Interested members of the public may
submit relevant written or oral information on the topic of this
advisory activity, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the
CASAC to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to
the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific
or technical information or analysis for CASAC panels to consider or if
it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information.
Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO
directly.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to five minutes.
Each person making an oral statement should consider providing written
comments as well as their oral statement so that the points presented
orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties should
contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at the
contact information noted above by May 26, 2015 to be placed on the
list of public speakers.
    Written Statements: Written statements should be supplied to the
DFO via email at the contact information noted above by May 26, 2015 so
that the information may be made available to the Panel members for
their consideration. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post
written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or
teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version
of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish
documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public
should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in
any written comments, may be posted to the CASAC Web site. Copyrighted
material will not be posted without explicit permission of the
copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow at (202)
564-2050 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Mr. Yeow preferably at least ten days prior
to each meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.

    Dated: April 16, 2015.
Thomas H. Brennan,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2015-09631 Filed 4-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Y INGTON, D. C. 20460 JUbJ  4 2001 CT: Reuse Assessments: A Tool Larry Reed, Acting Director Office of Emergency and Superfbnd National Policy Managers Regions 1  10 SE OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE OSWER 9355.7 06P d Land Use Directive This directive presents idomation for developing futrare land use assumptions when making remedy selection decisions for Superfund sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA). The purpose of this directive is to:

1. Reaffirm the directive   Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process,  BSWER Directive No. 9355.7 04, May 1995 ( the Superfund Land Use Directive) in Superfund response actions, and highlight its importance in achieving the goals of the Superknd Redevelopment Initiative ( SRT);

2. Extend the applicability of the Superfimd Land Use Directive to non time critical removal actions , where appropriate; and 3. Introduce the   Reuse Assessment  as a tool to help implement the Superfund Land Use Directive ( see Attachment 1).

AC Om July 23, f 999, the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) announced the Superfund Redevelopment Initiative ( SRI) to help communities return Superfiand sites to productive use. The SRJ launched a coordinated national effort to develop policies, procedures and practices needed to achieve this goal. The SMalso reemphasizes EFA s current practice of considering ~ jc~ ~~~~   ~ ~ of this~ directive has not been extended to~ non time critical removal actions for Brownfields revolving foan fund pilot projects. Regions and Brownfields PiIot recipients should continue to refer to the relevant rownfields program guidance.

htemet Address ( URL) Q http: llwww. epa. gov Recycl9Mec ~ clable0 Printed w% h Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper ( Minimum 25% POStCOnSUmer) I OSWR 9355.7 04P future land use assumptions in cleanup decisions and encouragescommunities to communicate their future land use preferences before the Agency Mly implements a cleanup remedy. In implementingthe SRI, the Agency is clear in assuring that site reuse, where it can be achieved, occurs without compromising cleanup standards or the protectiveness of response actions.

TA 2 The Superfund Land Use Directive( see Attachment 2) provides basic information on developing and using future land use assumptions to support Superfund remedial actions. The SuperfundLand Use Directive promotes early discussionswith stakeholders regarding potential future land use options for sites and promotes the use of that information to develop realistic assumptions regarding future land use. The followingtopics are addressed in the Directive:

% Why realistic assumptionsof future land use are important to the Superfund response process;

6 Types of information that cm be considered; e How to use assumptions of future land use in the development, selection and implementation of response actions;

B Public involvement considerations;

% The role of institutional controls when response actions result in restricted fbture uses; and e The applicability of hture land use considerations to Federal Facility sites undergoing response actions, as well as RCM Corrective Action sites.

Integrating realistic assumptionsof future land use into Superfund response actions is an important step toward facilitatingthe reuse of sites following cleanup. Therefore, implementation of the Superfund Land Use Directivecan be an important factor in achievingthe sites to objectivesof the S wherever cleanup actions G be catalysts for returning ~ upe~~ d productive use. Regions should review the Superfund Land Use Directive and ensure that reasonable future land use assmptions are incorporated into the development, evaluation and selection of response actions, where appropriate.

' App~~ cab~ li~ to Federal Facilities and RCW Corrective Action. Where another federal agency is performing a CEWCLA based remedial action or non time critical removal, it should develop assumptions of reasonably anticipated future land use as part ofthe response process consistent with the Superfund Land Use Directive, where a~~~~ pr~~ t~. Information in this directive may be helpful to Federal Faci! ity site managers conducting this work. In particular, the Reuse Assessment Guide conveys a concise hand practical approach to addressing future land use issues. Also, information In this directive may be helpful to RG project managers in developing future farad use assumptions. However, RCM stakeholders should a refer to guidance on land use in the May 1,1996, Notice of Proposed UkrnEkiEg ( Vd. 61 , NO. $ 5, 40 GFW, Pi3, geS 19432 to 19464). f QSWR 9355.7 06P This directiveextends the applicability of the SuperfimdLand Use Directive to non timecritical removal actions, where site conditions and the nature of the response action warrant. Assumptions regarding reasonably anticipated future land use can be considered when developingthe Engineering EvaluatioidCostAnalysis ( EEICA). Future land use assumptions can . support site characterization, risk assessment, and the development, evaluation and selection of response actions. The analysis supporting the assumptionsof future land use can be scaled back, as appropriate, consistent with the scope of the removal action.

~ § § ~ ~~~~ Q~~.

The reuse assessment, as described in Attachment 1, involves collecting and evaluating information to develop assumptionsabout reasonably anticipated future land use( s) at Superfund sites. It provides a tool to implement the Superfhd Land Use Directive and may involve a review of available records, visual inspectionsofthe site and discussions about potential future land uses with local government officials, property owners and community members. Information gathered as part of the reuse assessment can be combined With other information on potential future land use obtainedthrough the CERCLA community involvement process and through dialogue with state officials.

Information obtained from the reuse assessment can be particularly useful during the planning stages of a response action. The resulting assumptions of reasonably anticipated hture use can be considered as part of the following:

. a The baseline risk assessment when estimating potential future risks; e3 The development of remediaYremova1action objectives and the development and evaluationof response alternatives; and * The selection of the appropriate response action required for the protection sf human health and the environment.

Similarly, a reuse assessment can be useful for developing future land use assumptionsas part of the EEKA and action memorandum supporting a noxa time critical removal action.

Copies of this document are available on the Superfundweb site, at h~://~. ersa, nov/ su~ e~~~~ bs.~~. Copies of this document may also be obtained from the OEM Document Center ( 703) 603 9232. General questions about this topic should be referred to the Hotline at I  8OO 424 5~ 46. The subject matter specialist for this document is Paul Nadeau of OE  3 R 9355.7 06P Notice: This document is intended to provide guidance and information for EPA staff, states, tribes, Potentially Responsible Parties ( PWs) and contractors conducting site cleanups under CERCLA, as well as for local governments and other stakeholders involved with Superfund sites and the CERCLA response process. The approach in this guidance is meant to be considered at current and future sites undergoing m / FS or EE/ CA, to the extent possible. Any decisions regarding a particular remedy selection decision will be made based on the statute and regulations, and EPA decision makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches that differ from this guidance, where appropriate, on a case by case basis. Consistent withthe Superfund Land Use Directive, this guidance is not intended to suggest that previous remedy selection decisions should be reopened. EPA may change this guidance in the future.

Attachment 1  Reuse Assessment Guide Attachment 2  Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process cc: Jeff Josephson, Supehd Lead Region Coordinator, USEPA Region 2 NAWM Co Chairs QERRRecords Manager9IMC 52026 QERR Documents coordinator, HOSC 5202G QERR Regional Center Directors Paul Nadeau, QERR 5204G John Harris, OERR 52046 Steve Caldwell, ST/ SIC 52046 Suzanne Wells, CIOC 5204G Elizabeth Cotsworth, 8SW 5301W Linda Gacqnski, OSPS 5101  4 OSWER 9355.7 06P The reuse assessment involves collecting and evaluating information to develop assumptions about reasonably anticipated future land use( s) at Supehd sites. It provides a tool to implement the Superhnd Land Use Directive, and may involve a review of available records, visual inspections of the site and discussions about reasonably anticipated future uses with local government officials, property owners and community members.

Information obtained from the reuse assessment can be particularly useful during the planning stages of a response action. The resulting assumptions of reasonably anticipated future use can be considered as part of the following:

a The baseline risk assessment when estimating potential hture risks; e The development of remediaVremovd action objectives and the development and evaluation of response alternatives; and e The selection of the appropriate response action required for the protection of human health and the environment.

Similarly, a reuse assessment can be useful for developing future land use assumptions as part of the EEKA and action memorandum supporting a non time critical removal action.

A reuse assessment assists in developing assumptions regarding the @ pesor broad categories of reuse that might reasonably occur at a Superfund site. Examples of land use assumptions that appear likely based on the conclusions of a reuse assessment include, but are not limited to, residential, comerciaVindustal, recreational and ecological. More specific end uses ( e. g., office complex, shopping center, or soccer facility) can be considered during the response process when detailed planning information is readily available.

The scope and level of detail of the reuse assessment should be site specific and tailored to the complexity of the site, the extent of the contamination, the level of redevelopment activity that has already occurred at the site and the density of development in the vicinity of the site. Reuse assessments and the development of future land use assumptions should rely on readily available irmfomation, to the extent possible. Determining the applicability and scope of a reuse assessment will be dependent on site specific circumstances andor the overall approach anticipated for addressing the site. For example:

e e the owner desires to ~ a~~ ta~ n the cwent use, or = ea wide ground amination sites in highly developed wbm areas, may only require a *= limited assessment;

( I S future Band use decisions have already been determined and mzy simply require a review to confi~ mthe infomation;

 I R 9355.7 06P e Large sites, or sites with several operable units and potentially different future use scenarios, may benefit from multiple reuse assessments, or an iterative approach to developing fbture land use assumptions.

While a reuse assessment may not be necessary at every site, EPA should collect and summarize available information about potential & we uses for NPL sites and non the critical removal actions, as appropriate, to form the basis for the assumptions regarding reasonably anticipated hture land use.

The Superfund Land Use Directive states that in cases where the future land use is relatively certain, the remedial action objective( s) generally should reflect this land use. In this case, alternative future land use scenarios generally are not required unless it is impracticable to provide a protective remedy that allows for the desired use. The Superfund Land Use Directive also states that in cases where the reasonably anticipated land use is uncertain, or where multiple uses are being considered, a range of potential future land use options should be considered when developing remedial action objectives. For example, information gathered for the reuse assessment suggests the site could be used either for recreational purposes or for commercial/ light industrial activity. In that case, when identifying~ inultiplepotential reuse scenarios, the reuse assessment should consider input from stakeholders on which scenario they believe is most likely. In other cases, alternative fLature land use scenarios can be reflected by developing a range of remedial alternatives for detailed evaluation that could achieve different land we potentials.

Reuse assessments should have greatest applicability to sites with waste materials on the surface andlor contaminated soil. Future ground water use was not extensively considered in the Superfwnd Land Use Directive. There are separate expectations established in the NCP, Section 300.430 ( a) ( 1) ( iii) ( F) that    EPA expects to return usable ground waters to their beneficial uses, wherever practicable, within a time frame that is reasonable given the particular circumstances of the site.  Generally, ground water use is determined independently from land use, through Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs, state ground water classifications and EPA s   Guidelines for Ground Water Classification Under the EPA Ground Water Protection strategy,  Final Draft [ 198Lb]. However, it is important to consider the current and fbture ground water uses when developing htme land use assumptions, since the need to protect ground water quality may drive the soil cleanup levels. For example, portions of surface or sub surface contamination that present a threat to ground water may require a greater degree of cleanup over a larger area than might be needed for soil clean up alone. Alternatively, an area of clean land may be needed to Instdl a ground water pump and treat system to contain or restore underlying contaminated ground water. Each of these situations could affect fhre land use options for the site.

In genera& a reuse assessment can be condu e entity conducting the EE/ CA. As with other activities per or EE/ CA, EPA can determine the appropriate IeveX of oversight when . EPA is responsible for ensuring that ~ t~~~ s seasonable ~ s ~ regarding future Imd rase are considered in the selection of a response ~~~~ n action. This ~ ~ t ~ should be coordinatedtwith~ theostate.

 2 The reuse assessment should provide sufficient information to develop realistic assumptions ofthe reasonably anticipated futupe use( s) for a site. Items that should be considered are listed in Table 1, which further describes and builds upon the items identified in the Superfund Land Use Directive. The entity conducting the reuse assessment may use this outline as a guide for carrying out the assessment. Each reme assessment will be different, but this outline offers a structure that should ensure a thorough evaluation can be performed. As noted, the scope and level of effort needed to complete a reuse assessment will be dependent on conditions at the site and should be tailored accordingly. Information supporting a reuse assessment should be obtained from existing and readily available sources to the extent possible.

Identify stakeholders and their connection to the site, e. g., site owner, current user, developer, PW, state and local or tribal government, community member, Community Advisory Group, ( CAG), etc. Determine which stakeholders are responsible for local land use determinations Document the stakeholders who participate in $ e Reuse Assessment s Physical features: size, shape, topography, special features * Existing buildings and other site improvements e Site location in relation to residential, commercial, industrial, agriculturaland recreational areas Current and past uses Neighboring activities and land uses Relevant public infrastructure: roads, utilities, transit, parks, etc.

En~ i~~~~ e~ t~ l Considerations Contaminantsand their location( s), technology constraints, to the extent this information is known * Potential restrictions resulting from the environmental contamination Areas that are " clean" ( i. e., where rikks are acceptable, consistent with their planned use) and potentially available for immediate reuse e Ground water use classificatioddetermination Other site characteristics ( e. g., wetlands, surface waters, upland habitat, forested habitat, flood plains)

Person or entitv that holds title to the site: who controis access to the site Any property Gens, bankruptcy considerations Site owner( s) preferences and plans Any plans for the sale of the property Zoning Existing area master plans Federal, state or tribe and local environmentaf regulations ( e. g., wetlmds, Rood plain, etc.) impacting reuse Institutionalcontrols ( e. g., easements, covenants) already in place ( I Historical and cultural resources 9 Future reuses that community members would support Future reuses that community members would oppose Cultural factors that may create barriers or assets to any type of hture reuse ( historic buildings, Native American sacred tands) Environmentaljustice issues  3 R 9355.7 56P Public ~~~ t~ ative § Inhmcture plans that may influence the site uses Potential municipallpublicuses, includingpark and recreational facility, transit facility, public building Publicly initiated private sector redevelopmentproject ( e. g., government organizedindustrial park) Funds availablekommitted for the redevelopmentof the site Most Eikelv Future Uses Summarize the information asthe basis for concludingthe most likely future use or uses I aaio Land use, including the potential reuse of contaminated sites after cleanup, is generally determined by local government officials and private stakeholders. Men formulating assumptions about futblre land use, it will be important to consult with them. There me key questions one should try to answer to arrive at the assumptions about future land use that are needed to support a reuse assessment. Tke list below draws on the discussion in the Superfimd Land Use Directive about the types anid sources of infomation that should be considered. It is not intended to be comprehensive, but includes questions that may be appropriate in a large number of cases. The questions that are relevant at a specific site will be determined by conditions at that site and by the scope of the effort needed to properly assess the anticipated hture use of land.

It may be possible to answer some of these questions fairly readily by gathering existing information from available documents, by interviewing stakeholders, OJ by visiting the site. Some questions may be answered by information already obtained in the CQUTS~ ofthe PRP search, or in developing a cornunity involvement plan. If it is difficult to get infomation from the site owner through interviews, consider getting the basic infomation from a title report and a market price appraisal. These can be obtained from a local title and real estate company. vvlhere sites are part ~ r of tribal lands, there are many possible scenarios for site ~ ~ and for making decisions s ~ about future use. It is most appropriate to consult with tribal government officials for information about how to work with tribes on site ownership as well as on other issues relevant to tribes. Appendix A offers a fairly comprehensive list of sources that may have information that will be usefial when forming assumptions about potential reuse.

Consider the following questions:

( Review existing documents)

c at were the past U%( S) of the site? u. at does tide and lien information show about past ownership? * Are there historical sites, cultural factors, Native erican religious sites to consider?

 4 I ( Site visit or interview with site owner, or local government or tribal oficials)

e What are the current uses at the site? e What are the uses in neighboring areas? r What does census informationshow about the local area? . B ,

What is the character of the neighborhood ( e. g., residential, mixed use, in transition from one type of use to another)? What are the trends in land use in the surroundingarea ( e. g., decreasing residential population, increasing comerciaVindustrid use, ente rise zone designation)? Are there any local Brownfields assessment and redeve rgopment activities?

( Interview with current owner)

What are the owner's plans for the site following cleanup? Will the use remain the same? Will the site be sold? To whom?

( P Is there a prospectivepurchaser & r the property? e If there are no current plans, what does the current owner consider to be the likely use? What is the basis for this conclusion? I at act^^^ ~~~~~

or ~~~~~

Fubrere Use? ( Documents, maps, zoning regulations, land records and interviews with local government oficials in departments such as Planning, Public Works, Environment and Economic Development; or tribal government oficials, where appropriate, who have jurisdiction or influence over land use)

r c r 5 c What zoning laws and ordinances apply? What is current zoning for the site? Is the zoning expected to change in the near futunp? Why? What are the applicable local area land use plans, master plans, etc.? How do they affect the site? What local restrictions on property use apply? Are tbere any existing institutional controls? What are the property boundaries? Are there any obvious advantages, obstacles or other factorsthat may affect reuse of the site, such as size of the parcel, waterfront access, steep slopes or irregular terrain, heavy traffic on the access street, difficult access to the site, abandoned buildings, etc.? If the site is adjacent to surface water, are there any resource protection programs or other restrictions ( e. g., fish advisories) in place or planned that could impact reuse? Are there ground water use determinations, wellhead protection areas, recharge areas and other aeas identified in the state's Comprehensive Ground Water Protection Program? Are there flood plains, wetlands, or endangered or threatened species to be taken into account? What other land or ground water use regulations or controls affect the reuse potential? ~ Are there my.~ ~~~~~ ove~ e~ t t ~ glms that might affect reuse? ~ ~

 5 5 OSWER 9355.4 06P

( Interviews with local government oficials, or tribal government oficials where appropriate, who havejurisdiction or influence over land use)

e Who are the key individuals that will be involved in determining reuse of the property? What are the local officials  assessment of what is likely to happen at the site? Have any ideas for reuse been discussed for this site? What are they? How certain and detailed are the ideas for reuse? Candocuments be obtained that describe them? Have they been submitted to the planning agency for approval? With what result? Who will be the lead person or Agency for implementing the plans for reuse? What other individuals have important information regarding the reuse of the site? If there are no current plans for the site, who will determine future site reuse and how will it be accomplished?

( Interview community groups and leaders, including TAG grantees and CAG kwdership, gsuch groups exis?)

e How is the comunity involved in local land use planning? e What are the community s expectations for reuse of the site?

@ Mat would community members like to see?

0 What would community members oppose? e If there are reuse ideas or plans being discussed, what do community members think about these plans?

EPA should integrate site specific information on environmental conditions, to the extent available at the time the reuse assessment is being done, with the results of the site visit, interviews, md document review to ensure realistic future land use assumptions are developed. If an entity other than the RPWOSC is conducting the Reuse Assessment, EPA should decide at the outset how site specific infomation on environmental conditions will be incorporated into the analysis. Consider the following:

@ own about the nature and extent af the contamination that could impact future Imd use ( eg., major con inants, location, depths, vol~ mes, ?

@ there any uses or activities on the site tbt may be precluded due to the .< ~

cont~ i~ atio~, cleanup process or residual co~~ i~ a~~ on?

@ Are there portions ofthe site that are not co~~~~ ate~ and not likely to be needed phase that could be made available for reuse on an expedited basis? B Are there any institutional controls that currently exist or are likely to exist in the future? If institutional controls exist, what are they? Have they been effective?

As noted above, and as reflected in the Superbd Land Use Directive, the reuse assessmentprocess should include soliciting community input on fkture land use considerations for sites. Community input can be particularly useful for sites where the future land use is uncertain and should be directed toward understanding the types or categories of future land use that the community believes would be appropriate for the site, and categories of land use that the community believes inappropriate. This information can be used as an indicator of the potential reliability and reasonableness of the future land use assumptions and their potential relevance for consideration in the remedy selectionprocess.

In addition, mswptions regarding reasonably anticipated future land use and their impact on the baseline risk assessment, response action objectives and the proposed response action, should be integrated into the CERCLA community involvement process. Future land use assumptions should be included in fact sheets, public meetings and other communication tools, as appropriate, over the course of the response. action.

States and tribes have substantial and meaningfbl involvement in Superfund cleanups. Therefore, it is important to involve state officials and tribaI leaders in the reuse assessment and in the developmentofhture land use assumptions. This is especially true at Fund financed sites where states have a cost share obligation for the response. State officials can provide useful informationregarding economic development incentiveprograms or other state lead activities that could impact the potential future land use for the site. Tribes can also supply useful information in many areas relevant to reuse assessment. If there are differences on land use questions that involve tribes, work with tribal leaders to resolve the issues.

After site visits, interviews, community meetings and document reviews, EPA or the entity conducting the reuse assessment should have basic infomation regarding the potential future land use for the site. The informationcollected should be documented in a report, or as a section of the RIFS or EEICA, identifying md supporting the potential future land use@>. This documentation should be used by the entity conducting the M/ FS or EE/ CA and EBA for developing the reasonably anticipated future land use assumptions for the site.

Results of the reuse assessment should be described in the decision document  or the r~ ~ response action ( Action ~ e ~ oor Record ofdDecision). The decision document should discuss the reasonably anticipated future land use( s) and the basis for these assumptions. The decision docwent should discuss how the ktwe land use assumptions were addressed in the baseline risk assessment and feasibility study or the streamlined risk evaluation and EE/ CA activities for no~ t~~~~ r~~~ ca~ removak. The decision document also should describe the types of uses that be supported at the site following et^^^ of the response action. The basis for  7 OSmR 9355.7 06P selection of the response action should be consistent with CERCLA and the NCP.

en the reuse assessment and the selected remedy result in categories of allowable htwe land use ( e. g. commercial, industrial, recreational), but not unrestricted use, appropriate institutional controls should be identified in the decision document. Institutional controls should be used, where appropriate, to prevent exposure to contamination remaining on site and to provide access to, or protect, components of the remedy. Use of institutional controls should be coordinated withstate and local government officials and the community to ensure they can be implemented and maintained as planned. ( See:    Institutional Controls: a Site Manager s Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and § electing Institutional Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups,  OSWER 9355.0 74FS P, EPA 540 F 00 005, September 2000.)

Attachments: 1. Appendix A  Sources of Useful Information 2. Appendix B  Glossary of Terms, Acronyms and Abbreviations OSWR 9355.7 06P I Site Related Sources Current owner and Future owner Agenthroker on Lendershanks who Will finance reuse development Environmental consultant Local Government Mayor or County Executive City Manager or County Administrator City or County Council Planning Department/ Commission Department of Economic Development, or local economic development corporation Department of Environment Department of Public Works Brownfields Program Department of Housing and Cornunity Development State/ Tribal Government State or tribal roject manager Department oPEconomic Development Department of the Environment Department of Planning Department of Housing and Community Development Department of Water and Utilities Department of Parks and Recreation Communi& Local cornunity development corporations Local environmental organizations Influentialcommuni members National and regiona7tribal environmental organizations CAGs TAG groups Private Sector Real estate brokers and appraisers Site selectiodsearch firms Bds/ lenders Attorneys  real estate, environmental, land use Chambers of Commerce Environmental Protection Aaencv  9 OSWR 9355.7 06P GAG CERCLA EE/ CA EPA NCP NPL OEIRR OSC 03wEw PW ROD TAG CRO ss Applicable or Relevant and AppropriateRequirements in the Superfund Response Process Cornunity Advisory Group ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund Engineering EvaluatiodCost Analysis U. S. Environmental Protection Agency National Contingency Plan National Priorities List Office of Emergency and Remedial Response On Scene Coordinator EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Potentially ResponsibleParties Record of Decision Remedial Investigatiofleasibility Study Technical Assistance Grant Community Reuse Organization Site Specific Advisory CTI CY TON, D. C. 20460 May 25, 1995 :<.

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE OSWER Directive No. 9355.7 04 MO SUBdECTr Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process FROM : Elliott P. Laws s/ Assistant Administrator TO Director, Waste Management Division Regions I, IV, V, VI1 Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division Region I1 Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division Regions 111, VI, VIII; IX Director, Hazardous Waste Division, Region X Director, Environmental Services Division Regions I, VI, VI1 This directive presents additional information for considering land use in making remedy selection decisions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA) at National Priorities List ( NPL) sites The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) believes that early community involvement, with a particular focus on the community's desired future uses of property associated with the CERCLA site, should result in a more democratic decision making process; greater community support for remedies selected as a result of this process; and more expedited, cost effective cleanups.

The major points of this directive are:

Discussions with local land use planning authorities, appropriate officials, and the public, as appropriate, OSWR 9355.7 04 should be conducted as early as possible in the scoping phase of the Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study ( RI/ FS), This will assist EPA in understanding the reasonably anticipated future uses of the land on which the Superfund site is located;

If the site is located in a community that is likely to have environmental justice concerns, extra efforts should be made to reach out to and consult with segments of the community that are not necessarily reached by conventional communication vehicles or through local officials and planning commissions;

Remedial action objectives developed during the RI/ FS should reflect the reasonably anticipated future land use or uses;

Future land use assumptions allow the baseline risk assessment and the feasibility study to be focused on developing practicable and cost effective remedial alternatives. These alternatives should lead to site activities which are consistent with the reasonably anticipated future land use. However, there may be reasons to analyze implications associated with additional land uses;

Land uses that will be available following completion of remedial action are determined as part of the remedy selection process. During this process, the goal of realizing reasonably anticipated future land uses is considered along with other factors. Any combination of unrestricted uses, restricted uses, or use for long term waste management may result.

Discussions with local land use authorities and other locally affected parties to make assumptions about future land use are also appropriate in the RCRA context. EPA recognizes that RCRA facilities typically   are industrial properties that are actively managed, rather than the abandoned sites that are often addressed under CERCLA. Therefore, consideration oaf nonresidential uses is especially likely to be appropriate for RCRA facility cleanups. Decisions regarding future land use that are made as part of RCRA corrective actions raise particular issues for RCRA ( e. g., timing, property transfers, and the viability of long term permit or other controls) in ensuring protection of human health and the environment. EPW intends to address the issue of future land use as it relates specifically to RCRA facility cleanups in subsequent guidance and/ or rulemakings.

This guidance is also relevant for Federal Facility sites Land use assumptions at sites that care undergoing base closure  2 OSWER 9355.9 04 may be different than at sites where a Federal agency will be maintaining control of the facility. Most land management agency sites will remain in Federal ownership after remedial actions. In these cases, Forest Land Management Plans and other resource management guidelines may help develop reasonable assumptions about future uses of the land. At all such sites, however, this document can focus the land use consideration toward appropriate options. 2 Reasonably anticipated future use of the land at NPL sites is an important consideration in determining the appropriate extent of remediation. Future use of the land will affect the types of exposures and the frequency of exposures that may occur to any residual contamination remaining on the site, which in turn affects the nature of the remedy chosen. On the other hand, the alternatives selected through the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Contingency Plan ( NCP) [ 55 Fed. Reg. 8666, March 8, 19901 process for CERCLA remedy selection determine the extent to which hazardous constituents remain at the site, and therefore affect subsequent available land and ground water uses.

The NCP preamble specifically discusses land use assumptions regarding the baseline risk assessment. The baseline risk assessment provides the basis for taking a remedial action at a Superfund site and supports the development of remedial action objectives. Land use assumptions affect the exposure pathways that are evaluated in the baseline risk assessment. Current land use is critical in determining whether there is a current risk associated with a Superfund site, and future land use is important in estimating potential future threats. The results of the risk assessment aid in determining the degree of remediation necessary to ensure long termprotection at NPL sites.

EPA has been criticized for too often assuming that future use will be residential. In many cases, residential use is the least restricted land use and where human activities are associated with the greatest potential for exposures. This directive is intended to facilitate future remedial decisions at NPL sites by outlining a public process and sources of information which should be considered in developing reasonable assumptions regarding future land use.

This directive expands on discussions provided in the 2Federal agency responsibility under CERCLA 120 ( h) ( 31, which relates to additional clean up which may be required to allow for unrestricted use of the property is not addressed in this guidance,

 3 BSWR 9355.7 04 preamble to the National Oil and Hazardous Substance CDntingency Plan ( NCP); IIRisk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Vol. I, Human Health Evaluation Manual" ( PartA) ( EPA/ 540/ 1 89/ 002, Dec. 1989); " Guidance for conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA" ( OSWER Directive 9355.3 01, Oct. 1988); and " Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions" ( OSWER Directive' 9355.0 30, April 22, 1991)

This Land Use directive may have the most relevance in situations where surface soil is the primary exposure pathway. Generally, where soil contamination is impacting ground water, protection of the ground water may drive soil cleanup Levels. Consideration of future ground water use for CERCLA sites is not addressed in this document. There are separate expectations established for ground water in the NCP rule section 300.430 ( a)( 1)( iii)( F) that " EPA expects to return usable ground waters to their beneficial uses, wherever practicable, within a timeframe that is reasonable given the particular circumstances of the site".

This directive has two primary objectives. First, this directive promotes early discussions with local land use planning authorities, local officials, and the public regarding reasonably anticipated future uses of the property on which an NPL, site is located. Second, this directive gromotes the use of that information to formulate realistic assumptions regarding future land use and clarifies how these assumptions fit in and influence the baseline risk assessment, the development of alternatives, and the CERCLA remedy selection process.

The approach in this guidance is meant to be considered at current and future sites in the RI/ FS pipeline, to the extent possible. This directive is not intended to suggest that previous remedy selection decisions should be re opened.

In order to ensure use of realistic assumptions regarding future land uses at; a site, EPA should discuss reasonable anticipated future uses of the site with local land use planninq authorities, local officials. and the public, as appropriate, as earlv as possible durins the scopinq phase of the RI/ FS. EPA should gain an understanding of the reasonably anticipated future land uses at a particular Superfund site to perform the risk assessment and select the appropriate remedy.

A visual inspection'of the site and its surrounding area is  4 BSWW 9355.7 04 a good starting point in developing assumptions regarding future land use. Discussions with the local land use authorities and appropriate officials should follow. Discussions with the public can be accomplished through a public meeting and/ or other means. By developing realistic assumptions based on information gathered from these sources early in the RI/ FS process, EPA may develop remedial alternatives that are consistent with the anticipated future use.

The development of assumptions regarding the reasonably anticipated future land use should not become an extensive, independent research project. Site managers should use existing information to the extent possible, much of which will be available from local land use planning authorities. Sources and types of information that may aid EPA in determining the reasonably anticipated future land use include, but are not limited to:

Current land use Zoning laws Zoning maps Comprehensive community master plans Population growth patterns and projections ( e. g., Bureau of Census projections1 Accessibility of site to existing infrastructure ( e. g., transportationand public utilities) Institutional controls currently in place Site location in relation to urban, residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural and recreational areas Federal/ State land use designation fFederal/ State control over designated lands range from established uses for the general public, such as national parks or State recreational areas, to governmental facilities providing extensive site access restrictions, such as Department of Defense facilities) Historical or recent development patterns Cultural factors ( e. g., historical sites Native American religious sites) Natural resources information Potential vulnerability of ground water to contaminants that might migrate from soil Environmental justice issues Location of on site or nearby wetlands Proximity of site to a flood plain Proximity of site to critical habitats of endangered or threatened species Geographic and geologic information Location of Wellhead Protection areas, recharge areas, and other areas identified in a State's Comprehensive Ground water Protection Program OSWR 9355.7 04 These types of information should be considered when developing the assumptions about future land use. Interaction with the public, which includes all stakeholders affected by the <.

site, should serve to increase the certainty in the assumptions made regarding future land use at an NPL site and increase the confidence expectations about anticipated future land use are, in fact, reasonable.

For exampl. e, future industrial land use is likely to be a reasonable assumption where a site is currently used for industrial purposesr is located in an area where the surroundings zoned for industrial use, and the comprehensive plan predicts the site will continue to be used for industrial purposes.

NPL sites are located in diverse areas of the country, with great variability in land use pl anningpractices. For some NPL sites, the future land use of a site may have been carefully considered through local, public, participatory, planning processes, such as zoning hearings, master plan approvals or other vehicles. When this is the case, local residents around the Superfund site are likely to demonstrate substantial agreement with the local land use planning authority on the future use of the property. Where there is substantial agreement among local residents and land use planning agencies, owners and developers, EPA can rely with a great deal of certainty on the future land use already anticipated for the site. For other NPL sites, however, the absence or nature of a local planning process may yield considerably less certainty about what assumptions regarding future use are reasonable. In some instances the local residents near the Superfund site may feel disenfranchised from the local land use planning and development process. This may be an especially important issue where there are concerns regarding environmental justice in the neighborhood around the MPL site. Consistent with the principle of fairness, EPA should make an extra effort to reach out to the local community to establish appropriate future land use assumptions at such sites,

Future land use assumptions allow the baseline risk assessment and the feasibilitv studv to focus on the development of Dracticable and cost effective remedial alternatives, leadinq to site activities which are consistent with the reasonably anticirmted future land use.

The baseline risk assessment generally needs only to consider the reasonably anticipated future land use; however, it may be valuable to evaluate risks associated with other land  6 uses. The NCP preamble ( 55 Fed. Reg. 8710) states that in the baseline risk assessment, more than one future land use assumption may be considered when decision makers wish to understand the implications of unexpected exposures. Especially where there is some uncertainty regarding the anticipated future land use, it may be useful to compare the potential risks associated with several land use scenarios to estimate the impact on human health and the environment should the land use unexpectedly change. The magnitude of such potential impacts may be an important consideration in determining whether and how institutional controls should be used to restrict future uses. If the baseline risk assessment, evaluates a future use under which exposure is limited, it will not serve the traditional role, evaluating a " no actionr1scenario. A remedy, i. e., institutional controls to limit future exposure, will be required to protect human health and the environment. In addition to analyzing human health exposure scenarios associated with certain land uses, ecological exposures may also need to be considered.

Remedial action objectives provide the foundation upon which remedial cleanup alternatives are developed, In seneral, remedial action obiectives should be develoged in order to develop alternatives that would achieve cleanup levels associated with the reasonablv anticipated future land use over as much of the site as possible. EPA recognizes, however, that achieving either the reasonably anticipated land use, or the land use preferred by the community, may not be practicable across the entire site, or in some cases, at all* For example, as RI/ FS data become available, they may indicate that the remedial alternatives under consideration  or achieving a level. of cleanup consistent with the reasonably anticipated future land use are not cost effective nor pralcticable. If this is the case, the remedial action objective may be revised which may result in different, more reasonable land use( s) .

EPA's remedy selection expectations described in section 300.430( a) ( 1)( iii) of the NCP should also be considered when developing remedial action objectives. Where practicable, EPA expects to treat principal threats, to use engineering controls such as containment for low level threats, to use institutional controls to supplement engineering controls, to consider the use of innovative technology, and to return usable ground waters to beneficial uses to protect human health and the environment. ( Some types of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements ( ARARs) define protective cleanup levels which may, in turn, influence post remediation land use potential.)

In cases where the future land use is relatively certain, the remedial action objective generally, should reflect this land  7 OSWER 9355.7 04 use. Generally, it need not include alternative land use scenarios unless, as discussed above, it is impracticable. to provide a protective remedy that allows for that use. A landfill site is an example where it is highly likely that the future land use will remain unchanged ( i. e., long termwaste management area), given the NCPIS expectation that treatment of high volumes of waste generally will be impracticable and the fact that EPA's . presumptive remedy for landfills is containment. In such a case, a remedial action objective could be established with a very high degree of certainty to reflect the reasonably anticipated future land use.

In cases where the reasonably anticipated future land use is highly uncertain, a range of the reasonably likely future land uses should be considered in developing remedial action objectives. These likely future land uses can be reflected by developing a range of remedial alternatives that will achieve different land use potentials. The remedy selection process will determine which alternative is most appropriate for the site and, consequently, the land use( s) available following remediation.

As discussed in " Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions" ( OSWER Directive 9355.0 30, April 22, 19911, EPA has established risk range for carcinogens within which EPA strives to manage site risks, EPA recognizes that a specific cleanup level within the acceptable risk range may be associated with more than oneland use ( e. g., an industrial cleanup to may also allow for residential use at a 10  4 risk level.) It is not EPAIs intent that the risk range be partitioned into risk standards based solely on categories of land use ( e g., with residential cleanups at the lou6level and industrial cleanups at the 10  4 risk level.) Rather, the risk range provides the necessary flexibility to address the technical and cost limitations, and the performance and risk uncertainties inherent in all waste remediation efforts.

As a result of the comparative analysis of alternatives with respect to EPA's nine evaluation criteria, EPA selects a site specific remedy. The remedy determines the cleanup levels, the volume of contaminated material to be treated, and the volume of contaminated material to be contained. Consequently, the remedy selection decision determines the size of the area that can be returned to productive use and the particular types o  uses that will be possible following remediation.

The volume and concentration of contaminants left on site, and thus the degree of residual risk at a site, will affect future land use. For example, a remedial alternative may include leaving in place contaminants in soil at concentrations  8 OSWR 9355.7 04 protective for industrial exposures, but not protective for residential exposures. In this case, institutional controls should be used to ensure that industrial use of the land is maintained and to prevent risks from residential exposures. Conversely, a remedial alternative may result in no waste left in place and allow for unrestricted use ( e. g., residential use).

Resu% ts of the Remedv Sellectiola Process Several potential land use situations could result from EPA's remedy selection decision. They are:

The remedy achieves cleanup levels that allow the entire site to be available for the reasonably anticipated future land use in the baseline risk assessment ( or, wliere future land use is uncertain, all uses that could reasonably be anticipated).

The remedy achieves cleanup levels that allow most, but not all, of the site to be available for the reasonably anticipated future land use. For example,, in order to be cost effective and practicable, the remedy may require creation of a long term waste management area for containment of treatment residuals or low level waste on a small portion of the site. The cleanup levels in this portion of the site might allow for a more restricted land use.

The remedy achieves cleanup levels that require a more restricted land use than the reasonably anticipated future land use for the entire site. This situation occurs when no remedial alternative that is cost effective or practicable will achieve the cleanup levels consistent with the reasonably anticipated future land use, The site may still be used for productive purposes, but the use would be more restricted than the reasonably anticipated future land use. Furthermore, the more restricted use could be a long term waste management area over all or a portion of the site.

If any remedial alternative developed during the FS will require a restricced land use in order to be protective, it is essential that the alternative include components that will ensure that it remain protective. In particular, institutional controls will generally have to be included in the alternative to prevent an unanticipated change in land use that could result in  9 OSWER 9355.4 04 unacceptable exposures to residual contamination, or, at a minimum, alert future users to the residual risks and monitor for any changes in use. In such cases, institutional controls will play a key role in ensuring long term protectiveness and should be evaluated and implemented with the same degree of care as is given to other elements of the remedy. In developing remedial alternatives that include institutional controls, EPA should determine: the type of institutional control to be used, the existence of the authority to implement the institutional control, and the appropriate entity sresolve and ability to implement the institutional control. An alternative may anticipate two or more options for establishing institutional controls, but should fully evaluate all such options. A variety of institutional controls may be used such as deed restrictions and deed notices, and adoption of land use controls by a local government. These controls either prohibit certain kinds of site uses or, at a minimum, notify potential owners or land users of the presence of hazardous substances remaining on site at levels that are not protective for all uses. Where exposure must be Limited to assure protectiveness, a deed notice alone generally will not provide a sufficiently protective remedy. While the ROD need not always specify the precise type of control to be imposed, sufficient analysis should be shown in the FS and ROD to support a conclusion that effective implementation of institutional controls can reasonably be expected.

Suppose, for example, that a selected remedy will be protective for industrial land use and low levels of hazardous substances will remain on site. An industry may still be able to operate its business with the selected remedy in place. Institutional controls, however, generally will need to be established to ensure the land is not used for other, less restricted purposes, such as residential use, or to alert potential buyers of any remaining contamination.

Where waste is left on site at levels that would require limited use and restricted exposure, EPA will conduct reviews at least every five years to monitor the site for any changes. Such reviews should analyze the implementation and effectiveness of institutional controls with the same degree of care as other parts of the remedy, Should land use change, it will be necessary to evaluate the implications of that change for the selected remedy, and whether the remedy remains protective. EPA , s role in any subsequent Eadditional cleanup will be determined on a site specificbasis. If landowners or others decide at a future date to change the land use in such a way that makes further cleanup necessary to ensure prokectiveness, CERCLA does not prevent them from conducting such a cleanup as long as protectiveness of the remedy is not compromised, ( EPA may invoke  10 I.

OSWR 9355.7 04 CERCLA section 122( e) ( 61, if necessary, to prevent actions that are inconsistent with the original remedy.) In general, EPA would not expect to become involved actively in the conduct or oversight of such cleanups. EPA, however, retains its authority to take further response action where necessary to ensure protectiveness,

If you have any questions concerning this directive, please call Sherri Clark at 703 603 9043.

NOTICE: The policies set out in this memorandum are intended solely as guidance. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. EPA officials may decide to follow the guidance provided in this memorandum, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of specific site circumstances. Remedy selection decisionsare made and justified on a case specific basis. The Agency also reserves the right to change this guidance at any time without public notice.

 1 1


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24200-24201]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9696]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-04-2012-3770, FRL-9663-8]

American Drum & Pallet, Memphis, Shelby County, TN; Notice of
Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of settlement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), the United States Environmental Protection
Agency has entered into a settlement for reimbursement of past response
costs concerning the American Drum and Pallet Superfund Site located in
Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee for publication.

DATES: The Agency will consider public comments on the settlement until
May 23, 2012. The Agency will consider all comments received and may
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the settlement are available from Ms. Paula V.
Painter. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. CERCLA-04-
2012-3770 or Site name American Drum & Pallet Superfund Site by one of
the following methods:
     www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/enforcement/enforcement.htm1.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula V. Painter at 404/562-8887.

    Dated: April 9, 2012.
Anita L. Davis,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement & Information Management Branch, Superfund
Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-9696 Filed 4-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P