[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 227 (Monday, November 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72990-72991]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25797]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0074; FRL-10455-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Secondary Brass and Bronze
Production, Primary Copper Smelters, Primary Zinc Smelters, Primary
Lead Smelters, Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants, and Ferroalloy
Production Facilities (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Secondary Brass and
Bronze Production, Primary Copper Smelters, Primary Zinc Smelters,
Primary Lead Smelters, Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants, and
Ferroalloy Production Facilities (EPA ICR Number 1604.13, OMB Control
Number 2060-0110), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through January 31, 2023. Public comments were previously requested,
via the Federal Register, on April 8, 2022, during a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct
nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 28,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0074, to EPA online using https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that
all comments received will be included in the public docket without
change including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Submit written comments and recommendations to
OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of
publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find
this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under
30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search
function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
https://www.regulations.gov, or in person, at the EPA Docket Center,
WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington,
DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Secondary
Brass and Bronze Production (40 CFR part 60, subpart M) apply to both
existing facilities and new facilities that commenced either
construction or modification after June 11, 1973. These standards apply
to the following facilities in secondary brass or bronze production
plants: reverberatory and electric furnaces of 1,000 kg or greater
production capacity and blast (cupola) furnaces of 250 kg/hr or greater
production capacity. Furnaces from which molten brass or bronze are
cast into the shape of finished products, such as foundry furnaces, are
not considered to be affected facilities. The NSPS for Primary Copper
Smelters (40 CFR part 60, subpart P) apply to both existing facilities
and new facilities that commenced either construction or modification
after October 16, 1974. These standards apply to the following
facilities in primary copper smelters: dryer, roaster, smelting
furnace, and copper converter. The NSPS for Primary Zinc Smelters (40
CFR part 60, subpart Q) apply to both existing facilities and new
facilities that commenced either construction or modification after
October 16, 1974. These standards apply to the following facilities in
primary zinc smelters: roaster and sintering machines. The NSPS for
Primary Lead Smelters (40 CFR part 60, subpart R) apply to both
existing facilities and new facilities that commenced either
construction or modification after October 16, 1974. These standards
apply to the following facilities in primary lead smelters: sintering
machine, sintering machine discharge end, blast furnace, dross
reverberatory furnace, electric smelting furnace, and converter. The
NSPS for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart S)
apply to both existing facilities and new facilities that commenced
either construction or modification after October 23, 1974. These
standards apply to the following facilities in primary aluminum
reduction plants: potroom groups and anode bake plants. The NSPS for
Ferroalloy Production Facilities (40 CFR part 60, subpart Z) apply to
both existing facilities and new facilities that commenced either
construction or modification after October 21, 1974. These standards
apply to the following facilities in ferroalloy production plants:
electric submerged arc furnaces which produce silicon metal,
ferrosilicon, calcium silicon, silicomanganese zirconium, ferrochrome
silicon, silvery iron, high-carbon ferrochrome, charge chrome, standard
ferromanganese, silicomanganese, ferromanganese silicon, or calcium
carbide; and dust-handling equipment.
    In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NSPS.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators or secondary
brass and bronze production facilities, primary copper smelters,
primary zinc smelters, primary lead smelters, primary aluminum
reduction plants, and ferroalloy production facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR 60, subparts
M, P, Q, R, S, and Z).
    Estimated number of respondents: 14 (total).
    Frequency of response: Monthly, semiannually, annually.
    Total estimated burden: 2,008 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $349,000 (per year), which includes $107,000
in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The decrease in burden from the most-
recently approved ICR is due to an adjustment(s). Based on information
collected by the Agency, all facilities subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart S are complying with MACT Subpart LL for potroom groups and
anode back furnaces as an alternative to the NSPS requirements. In
addition, the MACT rule requirements for anode bake plants are more
stringent and superseded the NSPS requirements for such affected
facility. We assume all facilities subject to this NSPS will continue
to comply with the MACT instead; therefore, this ICR adjusts the burden
for Subpart S to reflect no respondents. In addition, Capital/Startup
vs. O&M costs have decreased due to the same reasons as stated above.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-25797 Filed 11-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 93)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27192-27199]
[DOCID:fr14my10-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1999-0006; FRL-9150-3]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Ruston Foundry Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Ruston Foundry
Superfund Site (Site), located in Alexandria, Rapides Parish,
Louisiana, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published
by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Louisiana, through the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), because EPA has
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective July 13, 2010 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by June 14, 2010. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1999-0006, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. EPA Region 6<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, Remedial Project Manager,
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-RL)<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, Remedial Project Manager,
U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-RL), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.
     Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-
HQ-SFUND-1999-0006. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.

Docket

    All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: U.S.
EPA Region 6 Library, 7th Floor, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Rapides Parish Public Library, 411
Washington Street, Alexandria, Louisiana 71301,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Public Records Center,
Galvez Building Room 127, 602 N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
70802,<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Web page: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/pubrecords.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, Remedial
Project Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-RL), 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-533-3508
(coltrain.katrina@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 6 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Ruston Foundry Superfund Site (Site), from the NPL. The NPL
constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the NCP, which EPA
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of CERCLA of 1980, as amended. EPA
maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites
on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the
Hazardous Substance Superfund. As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the
NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed
remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective July 13, 2010, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by June 14, 2010. Along with this direct
final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to
Delete in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register. If
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period
on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the
deletion, and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as
appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the
deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the
comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to
comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Ruston Foundry Superfund Site
and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V
discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse
comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.
Based on confirmation sample results, hazardous substances above health
based levels have been removed from the Ruston Foundry Superfund Site,
which allows for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure of the Site
property. Therefore, neither a policy nor a statutory review will be
necessary for the Site to ensure that the remedy is, or will be,
protective of human health and the environment. Pursuant to CERCLA
section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), and as provided in the current
guidance on Five-Year Reviews: EPA 540-R-01-007, OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-
P, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, June 2001, EPA will not
need to conduct a statutory five-year review for the Site.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the state of Louisiana, through the LDEQ,
prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice
of Intent to Delete co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules''
section of the Federal Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the state, through the LDEQ, has concurred on
the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in the major local newspaper,
Alexandria Town Talk. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public
comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from
the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to
Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    Ruston Foundry operated from 1908 until 1985. From the beginning of
operation until October 1983, it was operated under the name Ruston
Foundry and Machine Shops, Ltd and manufactured, bought, and sold
hardware, articles of tin, copper, and

sheet iron, agricultural implements, castings of all kinds, furniture
and other articles of wood; manufactured, repaired, bought, and sold
locomotives, engines, machinery, and all kinds of railroad and mill
supplies; and conducted general foundry and machinery operations. By
the mid-1950s, Ruston Foundry and Machine Shops, Ltd., had added
boiler, dragline, sugar mill, paper mill, saw mill, and oil refinery
repairs; casting services for ``grey iron and brass,'' including
manhole covers and drainage grates; welding and ``metalizing''; steel
fabrication.; and the distribution of ``Trussless Steel Wonder
Buildings'' to their business operations. In 1983, the facility was
reincorporated and began operating under the name Ruston Foundry and
Machine Shops, Inc. In November 1990, the Ruston Foundry and Machine
Shops, Inc. corporation charter was revoked by the Louisiana Secretary
of State for failure to file its corporate annual report.
    The Ruston Foundry Superfund Site is located in an urban area with
mixed development within the city limits of Alexandria, Louisiana. The
Site encompasses approximately 6.6 acres, and prior to remedial action
consisted primarily of dilapidated structures and building foundations
overgrown with thick brush. The Site is bordered by a series of
abandoned railroad tracks to the west, Chatlin Lake Canal to the
northeast and east, and Mill Street Ditch to the south and southeast.
Residential property is located to the north, south, and east of the
Site. Historical and active industrialized areas lie further west and
north of the Site.
    During the 1990s, LDEQ and EPA conducted a series of Site
investigations. On January 19, 1999 (64 FR 2950), the Site was proposed
to the NPL, and on May 10, 1999 (64 FR 24949), EPA formally announced
the addition of the Site to the NPL in the Federal Register. The EPA
Site identification number is LAD985185107.
    Foundry operations resulted in metals contaminated waste which was
dispersed throughout the property as fill material. As a result of this
disposal activity, foundry-derived process wastes (slag, foundry sand
piles, metal scrap, and castings) covered most of the Site and had
contaminated the soil. Also present at the Site was an underground
storage tank (UST) with unknown contents, asbestos containing material
(ACM), and slag waste identified as a characteristic hazardous waste
because it exceeded toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP)
criteria for lead. Elevated concentrations of lead, and organic
compounds benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, m-xylene, and oxylene were
detected in samples collected from the sludge materials contained in
drums. A Time-Critical Removal Action was performed on August 11, 1999,
to transport and dispose of the drums offsite.
    Through the Reuse Grant awarded by the Government in September
2000, the city of Alexandria developed a future reuse plan. It was
anticipated that the selected remedy would provide community
revitalization impacts because the implemented remedy would not result
in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining onsite
above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
Therefore, five-year reviews, operation and maintenance, and
institutional controls restricting Site use or access would not be
required for this remedial action. This remedy would be compatible with
Alexandria's Site reuse plan and allow for restoration of the Site to
beneficial uses.
    In support of the city's redevelopment plan, Kansas City Southern
Railway (KCS), the potentially responsible party (PRP), has provided
access to the 30-acre property adjacent to the Site with the intention
of deeding the property to the city once the city has completed its
investigation. On February 17, 2009, the city completed a Phase 1
investigation of this property. The city applied for and was granted a
Brownfields Grant related to the 30-acre property on September 22,
2008. This grant will be used to assist with costs related to
additional investigations of the 30-acre property and support future
redevelopment activities for the area.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

    The field investigation was considered a comprehensive approach
that addressed the Site as one operable unit. The field activities
included surface soil grid sampling, sampling of soil/sediment on
transects across the canals, sampling of waste piles, air monitoring,
sampling of surface soil hot spots, sampling of surface water and
sediment in the canals, stratigraphic profiling with cone penetrometer
testing, subsurface soil grid sampling with direct-push and
conventional drilling, monitor well installation, ground water
sampling, and aquifer testing.
    Foundry operations resulted in metals contaminated waste which was
dispersed throughout the property as fill material. As a result of this
disposal activity, foundry-derived process wastes (slag, foundry sand
piles, metal scrap, and castings) covered most of the Site and had
contaminated the soil. When present, the material ranged in thickness
from about 1 inch to about 5 ft in the southwest corner of the main
Site area. Concentrations present in samples taken from the permanent
ground water monitoring wells exceeded the screening criteria for one
constituent [bis(2-ethyhexyl)phthalate], which is a common plasticiser
used in well construction material and a common laboratory contaminant.
Concentrations are most likely associated with Site monitoring well
installation since the facility operated as a metals foundry.
Currently, public water supply is provided to the Site vicinity and is
expected to be provided onsite in the future. Ground water was not
identified as a media of concern. The majority of surface soil samples
contained visible foundry waste materials and, as a result, surface
soil samples tended to demonstrate the highest concentrations of Site-
related contaminants of concern. Also present at the Site was a UST
with unknown contents, ACM, and slag waste identified as a
characteristic hazardous waste because it exceeded lead TCLP criteria.
Through the human health and ecological risk assessments, the
identified contaminated media of most concern were surface soil and
sediment that contain lead and antimony, and the exposure routes of
most concern were direct contact and ingestion. Children were found to
be the most sensitive and vulnerable to the effects of lead.
    The EPA determined that it was appropriate to apply the presumptive
remedy for metals in soil based on the soil and contaminant
characteristics found at the Site and guidance provided in the
directive, Presumptive Remedies for Metals-in-Soil Sites (EPA 540-F-98-
054, OSWER-9355.0-72FS, September 1999). Following the guidance, the
EPA has a goal of resource conservation, thereby making reclamation/
recovery the preferred treatment technology for metals-in-soil sites.
This approach was determined to be inappropriate for the Site. Slag
waste is the primary contaminated media/matrix encountered throughout
the Site, and reclamation/recovery is generally not effective for
treatment of slag waste. The concentration of metals in the slag is too
low to warrant reclamation and recovery, and the physical and chemical
nature of the slag material that binds the metals would make
reclamation or recovery of metal from the waste physically and
economically impractical. Therefore, the second preferred treatment
technology alternative of immobilization

(solidification/stabilization) was used. In addition to the presumptive
remedies, the Feasibility study evaluated a no action alternative, as
required by the NCP for inclusion as a baseline of Site conditions for
comparison, and an excavation and offsite disposal alternative.

Selected Remedy

Record of Decision Dated June 24, 2002

    The ROD was signed on June 24, 2002. The principal threat waste at
the Site was to be addressed through the excavation and offsite
disposal of contaminated soil and sediment, removal and offsite
disposal of ACM and the UST, and the excavation, treatment, and offsite
disposal of hazardous wastes.
    The remedial action objectives (RAOs) for the Site included the
following:
     RAO No. 1--Prevent direct human contact (trespassers,
adult recreators, and child recreators) with surface soils and waste
piles containing lead at concentrations that would result in a greater
than 5 percent chance that a child's blood lead value would exceed 10
micrograms per deciliter ([micro]g/dL).
     RAO No. 2--Prevent direct human contact (trespassers,
adult recreators, and child recreators) with surface soils and waste
piles containing antimony at concentrations which have a hazard index
greater than 1.
     RAO No. 3--Prevent leaching and migration of lead from
surface soils and waste piles into the ground water at concentrations
exceeding 0.015 milligrams per liter.
     RAO No. 4--Prevent leaching and migration of antimony from
surface soils and waste piles into the ground water at concentrations
exceeding 0.006 milligrams per liter.
     RAO No. 5--Prevent direct human contact with asbestos
containing material at concentrations greater than 1 percent by weight.
     RAO No. 6--Prevent direct contact with the underground
storage tank, its contents, and surrounding contaminated soils.
     RAO No. 7--Prevent direct human contact (trespassers,
adult recreators, and child recreators) with slag pile material with
toxicity characteristic leaching procedure lead concentrations greater
than 5 milligrams per liter and handle as hazardous waste in accordance
with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
     RAO No. 8--Prevent migration of contaminants to deeper
soils and ground water through the former onsite water supply well and
from the existing buildings, slabs, sump, and trash.
    Because there are no Federal or State cleanup standards for soil
contamination, the EPA established the RAO cleanup levels (CLs) based
on the baseline risk assessment to reduce the excess noncancer risk
associated with exposure to contaminated wastes, the excess risk of
exceeding 10 [micro]g/dL blood lead level, and the potential for
migration of contaminants into the ground water. The CL for antimony
was established as 150 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), and the CL for
lead was established as 500 mg/kg.
    The major components of the original remedy were:
    1. Stabilization--Approximately 1300 cubic yards (yd\3\) of
hazardous waste would be excavated and stabilized. The material would
be stabilized until sampling verified that it no longer exceeded TCLP
for lead. After verification, the waste would be disposed offsite at a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulated Subtitle D
facility.
    2. ACM--Materials would be consolidated onsite, contained, and
transported offsite to a disposal facility licensed to accept ACM.
Methods to control airborne dispersion of asbestos would be implemented
during remediation. The estimated total volume of material was 22
yd\3\.
    3. UST--The UST, its contents, and the surrounding petroleum wastes
would be characterized during the remedial design to determine whether
the contents would be cleaned up under CERCLA or Oil Pollution Act
authority. The surrounding polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated soils
would be removed and disposed offsite in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations. The total volume of tank contents was
estimated at 5,000 gallons. The volume of associated contaminated soil
was included in the soil/sediment estimated volume of 15,000 yd\3\.
    4. Building debris and water supply well--The onsite well would be
plugged and abandoned in accordance with federal, state, and local
regulations. Portions of the Site would be cleared, where necessary,
and the existing buildings and foundations would be demolished, removed
and disposed offsite.
    5. Soil/sediment--Approximately 15,000 yd\3\ of lead and antimony
contaminated soil and sediment would be excavated and disposed offsite
in a RCRA Subtitle D facility.
    6. Air Monitoring--During remedial action, efforts would be made to
control dust and run-off to limit the amount of materials that may
migrate to a potential receptor. Air monitoring would be conducted
during times of remediation to ensure that control measures are working
to regulate Site emissions.
    7. Short-term monitoring--Monitoring of the surface water and
ground water during remedial action may be necessary to ensure that
run-off control measures are working.

Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) Dated September 28, 2004

    The EPA issued the ESD on September 28, 2004, to document post-ROD
changes. Post-ROD negotiations between EPA and KCS indicated that the
use of stabilization may not be the most efficient and cost effective
method for addressing the slag waste. In addition, post-ROD discussions
between the city and the community resulted in changing the proposed
future Site reuse from recreational to industrial. Based on this
information, EPA issued an ESD in September 2004 to document future
Site use as industrial and to include a contingency remedy for the
hazardous waste.
    This new information significantly changed a component of the
selected remedy and added a contingency remedy; however, it did not
fundamentally alter the overall cleanup approach, which was
stabilization and offsite disposal. The change in land use required
revisions to the risk assessment, which in turn revised the soil/
sediment CLs, the estimated waste volume to be addressed, and the
estimated remedial costs. This change also required future operation
and maintenance (O&M) activities, Five-year Reviews, and Institutional
Controls (ICs).
    The Revised RAOs for the Site included:
     RAO No. 1--Prevent direct human contact (pregnant adult
woman worker) with surface soils and waste piles containing lead at
concentrations that would result in a greater than 5 percent chance
that a fetus's blood lead value would exceed 10 [micro]g/dL.
     RAO No. 2--Prevent direct human contact (adult workers)
with surface soils containing antimony at concentrations which have a
hazard index greater than 1.
     RAO No. 3--Prevent direct human contact with asbestos
containing material at concentrations greater than 1 percent by weight.
     RAO No. 4--Prevent direct contact with the underground
storage tank, its contents, and surrounding contaminated soils.
     RAO No. 5--Prevent direct human contact (pregnant adult
woman worker and adult workers) with slag pile material with toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure lead concentrations

greater than 5 milligrams per liter and handle as hazardous waste in
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations.
     RAO No. 6--Prevent migration of contaminants to deeper
soils and ground water through the former onsite water supply well and
from the existing buildings, slabs, sump, and trash.
    The EPA established the RAO CLs based on the revised baseline human
health risk assessment for an industrial reuse scenario to reduce the
excess noncancer risk associated with exposure to contaminated wastes
and the excess risk of exceeding 10 [micro]g/dL blood lead level. The
CL for antimony was established as 820 mg/kg, and the CL for lead was
established as 1400 mg/kg. During this time, the LDEQ conducted a Site-
specific evaluation of the leaching data and determined that soil data
did not exceed the calculated Site-specific CL for protection of ground
water. As a result, it was removed as a cleanup criteria for the Site.
    The major components of the 2004 ESD were:
    1. Stabilization--Approximately 1300 yd\3\ of hazardous waste would
be excavated and stabilized. The material would be stabilized until
sampling verified that it no longer exceeded TCLP for lead. After
verification, the waste would be disposed offsite at a RCRA regulated
Subtitle D facility.
    2. ACM--Materials would be consolidated onsite, contained, and
transported offsite to a disposal facility licensed to accept ACM.
Methods to control airborne dispersion of asbestos would be implemented
during remediation. The estimated total volume of material was 22
yd.\3\
    3. UST--The UST, its contents, and the surrounding petroleum wastes
would be characterized during the remedial design to determine whether
the contents would be cleaned up under CERCLA or Oil Pollution Act
authority. The surrounding polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated soils
would be removed and disposed offsite in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations. The total volume of tank contents was
estimated at 5,000 gallons.
    4. Building debris and water supply well--The onsite well would be
plugged and abandoned in accordance with federal, state, and local
regulations. Portions of the Site would be cleared, where necessary,
and the existing buildings and foundations would be demolished, removed
and disposed offsite.
    5. Soil/sediment--Approximately 1,766 yd\3\ of lead and antimony
contaminated soil and sediment would be excavated and disposed offsite
in a RCRA Subtitle D facility.
    6. Air Monitoring--During remedial action, efforts would be made to
control dust and run-off to limit the amount of materials that may
migrate to a potential receptor. Air monitoring would be conducted
during times of remediation to ensure that control measures are working
to regulate Site emissions.
    7. O&M and ICs--The implementation of ICs and O&M would be
necessary to restrict land use and ensure protectiveness.
    8. Five-Year Reviews--Because hazardous substances would remain on
the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, reviews of the remedy would be conducted no less than every
five years to ensure that the remedy functions as designed, and remains
protective of human health and the environment.
    9. Contingency Remedy--Excavation and Offsite Disposal was added as
a contingency for the hazardous waste. The implementation of this
contingency was dependent on the completion of a treatability analysis
of the stabilization process.

Explanation of Significant Differences Dated January 2, 2008

    As part of the Consent Decree negotiations and remedial design
activities, the PRP, through a treatability evaluation, researched and
reviewed options related to stabilization of the slag waste.
Information gathered during the treatability evaluation was submitted
by KCS in a letter dated September 13, 2007. The evaluation supported
the use of the contingency remedy documented in the 2004 ESD as being a
more efficient and cost effective approach for remediation of the
hazardous slag waste. Therefore, the 2008 ESD was issued to document
the information that significantly changed a component of the selected
remedy and to invoke the Contingency Remedy as outlined in the 2004
ESD. The contingency remedy, Excavation and Offsite Disposal, included
the removal of the 1,300 yd\3\ of hazardous slag waste from the Site
with subsequent offsite disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. All
other components of the remedy remain unchanged.
    The major components of the 2008 ESD were:
    1. Hazardous Waste--Approximately 1300 yd\3\ of hazardous waste
would be excavated and disposed offsite at a RCRA regulated Subtitle C
facility.
    2. ACM--Materials would be consolidated onsite, contained, and
transported offsite to a disposal facility licensed to accept ACM.
Methods to control airborne dispersion of asbestos would be implemented
during remediation. The estimated total volume of material was 22
yd\3\.
    3. UST--The UST, its contents, and the surrounding petroleum wastes
would be characterized during the remedial design to determine whether
the contents would be cleaned up under CERCLA or Oil Pollution Act
authority. The surrounding polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated soils
would be removed and disposed offsite in accordance with federal,
state, and local regulations. Total volume of tank contents was
estimated at 5,000 gallons.
    4. Building debris and water supply well--The onsite well would be
plugged and abandoned in accordance with federal, state, and local
regulations. Portions of the Site would be cleared, where necessary,
and the existing buildings and foundations would be demolished, removed
and disposed offsite.
    5. Soil/sediment--Approximately 1,766 yd\3\ of lead and antimony
contaminated soil and sediment would be excavated and disposed offsite
in a RCRA Subtitle D facility.
    6. Air Monitoring--During remedial action, efforts would be made to
control dust and run-off to limit the amount of materials that may
migrate to a potential receptor. Air monitoring would be conducted
during times of remediation to ensure that control measures are working
to regulate Site emissions.
    7. O&M and ICs--The implementation of ICs and O&M would be
necessary to restrict land use and ensure protectiveness.
    8. Five-Year Reviews--Because hazardous substances would remain on
the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, reviews of the remedy would be conducted no less than every
five years to ensure that the remedy is functioning as designed, and
remains protective of human health and the environment.

Explanation of Significant Differences Dated November 9, 2009

    This ESD documented the results from the remedial action activities
for the Site that support the Site's unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure scenario. Overall Site excavation and offsite disposal
activities resulted in the removal of contaminated media to levels
below the established CLs for the recreational/residential scenario.
Because the Site meets unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the ESD
removed the ICs, O&M, and five-year reviews as components of the
overall

Site remedy documented in the 2004 ESD and the 2008 Contingency ESD.

Response Actions

    The Consent Decree between EPA and KCS was entered by the court on
January 14, 2008. A notice to proceed was issued to the KCS on January
22, 2008. The Site RD/RA was completed as an EPA enforcement-lead
project with LDEQ acting as the supporting agency, and KCS performing
the work. The final Remedial Design and Implementation Work Plan was
submitted by KCS on February 21, 2008, and was accepted by the Agencies
as final on February 28, 2008.
    Prior to implementing the response actions, a Louisiana-licensed
asbestos abatement contractor completed a survey of and sampled
potential ACM on January 28, 2008. Following receipt of the results of
the asbestos sampling program, a second more local licensed contractor
filed the required notification form on February 19, 2008, completed
the abatement work on March 5, 2008, and disposed of 30 yd\3\ on March
7, 2008.
    The KCS construction contractor mobilized personnel, equipment and
operations trailers to the Site on February 25, 2008. Between March 5
and 14, 2008, the areas of interest (AOIs) and slag piles were
identified and marked. From March 14 through May 20, 2008, clearing and
grubbing, soil excavation, slag removal, confirmation sampling,
backfilling, and seeding activities were completed.
    A preliminary project closeout meeting/Site walk was held on May
10, 2008, by EPA, LDEQ, and KCS. A punch list was created at that time.
KCS completed hydroseeding, water system construction, and punch list
items between May 11 and 20, 2008, along with a pre-final inspection
with EPA and LDEQ on May 14, 2008. A formal Site closeout walk with the
same parties was conducted on June 17, 2008. No additional punch list
items were identified.
    While performing Site remedial activities, KCS determined that
minimal effort and cost would be required to address Site contamination
to levels well below the CLs established for lead and antimony under an
industrial scenario as described in the 2004 ESD. KCS was back at the
Site on July 9, 2008, collecting soil samples from locations identified
in the Remedial Investigation with lead concentrations between 500 mg/
kg and 1400 mg/kg. In addition, KCS collected confirmation soil samples
within AOIs that were excavated to native clay visually, to establish
that lead concentrations were below 500 mg/kg. A single sample location
south of the drainage ditch was above the unrestricted use standard of
500 mg/kg. KCS remobilized to the Site on August 18, 2008, to complete
excavation of this area. Using visual removal as the criteria,
contamination was excavated from approximately 0.9 acres followed by
the collection of confirmation samples. The excavation area was
backfilled and seeded. EPA and KCS conducted a final Site walk of the
south supplemental excavation on August 22, 2008. This supplemental
work was completed on August 24, 2008. The Preliminary Close Out Report
was signed on September 3, 2008, documenting the completion of onsite
construction.
    Review of the draft remedial action report noted that an area along
the southern boundary, just north of the canal may not have been fully
addressed. On May 15, 2009, EPA and KCS performed a Site inspection to
verify whether field activities were completed in this area. Visual
inspection of the area confirmed that additional excavation would be
required.
    KCS mobilized to the Site during the week of May 25, 2009, and
began clearing the canal bank. Excavation of contaminated soil and slag
began during the week of June 1, 2009, and was completed on June 23,
2009. EPA and LDEQ were onsite June 23, 2009, to conduct a Site
inspection with KCS. Seeding of the canal bank was completed on July 2,
2009, and later inspected jointly by LDEQ and KCS on July 22, 2009.
During the inspection, it was noted that significant erosion had taken
place due to heavy rains. These areas were repaired with riprap and
inspected by KCS and LDEQ on August 25, 2009.
    Details related to the remedial action are found in the final
Ruston Foundry Superfund Site Remediation Report dated March 9, 2009,
and the Ruston Foundry Superfund Site Remediation Report Addendum dated
September 10, 2009.
    After completion and acceptance of the final remedial action
documents, the final Close Out Report for the was finalized on January
29, 2010, documenting completion of remedial action activities.

Cleanup Goals

    The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program for the Site
was conducted in accordance with the work plan prepared to implement
the remedial action construction activities. The EPA, in conjunction
with LDEQ, conducted regular oversight throughout the implementation of
the remedial action, reviewed and commented on all project plans for
the Site, and participated in the Pre-final and Final Construction
Inspections.
    The quality assurance project plan incorporated EPA and State
comments and requirements. The EPA and LDEQ reviewed the remedial
action construction work for compliance with QA/QC protocols.
Construction activities at the Site were determined to be consistent
with the ROD, ESDs, and the Remedial Design and Implementation Work
Plan and specifications. Deviations or non-adherence to QA/QC protocols
or specifications were properly documented and resolved.
    All monitoring equipment was calibrated and operated in accordance
with the manufacturer's instructions and protocols established in the
quality assurance project plan. During sampling, equipment was properly
decontaminated prior to each use. The EPA analytical methods and
contract laboratory program-like procedures and protocols were used for
all confirmation and monitoring samples for soil and air analyses
during the RA using a private laboratory contracted by the PRP. Air
sample analyses followed EPA protocols in the Compendium of Methods for
the Determination of Toxic Compounds in Ambient Air. The EPA and the
State determined that analytical results were accurate to the degree
needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA.
    Monitoring activities implemented during 2008 and 2009 remedial
action are presented in the following paragraphs.
    1. ACM--A Louisiana-licensed asbestos abatement contractor visually
identified building debris that potentially contained asbestos. The
contractor collected 6 samples of building debris material and mapped
the area around the former foundry building where the debris was
located. Asbestos was positively identified in three samples, two of
cement board building debris and one of black flashing building debris.
The ACM was localized about the former foundry building with no
evidence of burial. Prior to excavation activities, the ACM debris was
consolidated onsite, contained, and transported offsite to a disposal
facility licensed to accept ACM. Methods to control airborne dispersion
of asbestos were implemented during remediation. The final total volume
of material disposed offsite was 30 yd\3\. After removal of the ACM,
the underlying soil within the ACM area was incorporated into the
overall slag and soil excavation areas. At

a minimum, 6 inches of soil were removed during remediation, and the
area was backfilled with clean fill upon completion.
    2. Slag--Slag piles were visually identified, outlined and
surveyed. Slag was either handpicked and moved with wheelbarrows or
shoveled using heavy equipment. After removal of the slag, the
underlying soil was incorporated into the overall soil excavation
areas. At a minimum 6 inches of soil were removed during remediation,
and the area was backfilled with clean fill upon completion.
Approximately 745.94 tons of hazardous waste from the northern portion
and 45 yd\3\ of hazardous waste from the canal bank were excavated and
shipped to a permitted RCRA hazardous waste landfill.
    3. UST--The UST was found about 2 feet below ground level with an
approximate 500-gallon capacity. The UST was filled with soil and a few
gallons of rainwater. No staining was evident in the surrounding soil;
however, the rainwater had a petroleum-like odor. Two soil samples were
collected from the base of the excavation area and analyzed for total
petroleum hydrocarbons by EPA Method 8015 diesel range organics and
kerosene. Results were below LDEQ UST standards. The UST was
decontaminated and disposed offsite. The surrounding soil was
incorporated into the overall soil excavation areas.
    4. Water Supply Well--All 5 onsite monitoring wells, designated MW-
1 through MW-5, were closed by a licensed Louisiana contractor in
accordance with LDEQ State requirements.
    5. Building Debris--The concrete slabs were broken with
jackhammers, stockpiled with the excavator, and pressure washed to
remove loose soil. After decontamination, an estimated 550 yd\3\ of
concrete was transported offsite and donated to a local concrete
recycler. All other domestic trash dumped on the property was removed
and disposed offsite. Remnants of four remaining structures and a large
amount of miscellaneous scrap metal were consolidated into piles, power
washed, and loaded onto trailers. Approximately 43 tons of steel and
other metal debris were recycled.
    6. Confirmation Samples--Approximately 7,220 yd\3\ [6,140 yd\3\
from the northern portion, 1069.5 tons (713 yd\3\) from the southern
portion, and 550 tons (367 yd\3\) from the canal bank] of lead and
antimony contaminated soil and sediment were excavated and disposed
offsite in a RCRA Subtitle D facility. Excavation progressed to the
underlying native clay with depths ranging from 6 inches to 4 ft below
original ground surface.
    Five-point composites were collected from 25 by 25-foot grids used
across the northern portion of the property. These grid locations were
supplemented with six additional confirmation sample locations in areas
where soil and slag locations overlapped. The southern portion of the
property was sampled based on sample locations from the RI and the
estimated location of the historic foundry building footprint. All
confirmation sample results show levels of lead and antimony to be less
than the CLs required for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure as
determined by the Site-specific risk assessment. Lead concentrations
are less than 500 mg/kg, with the highest concentration left onsite at
342 mg/kg, and antimony concentrations are less than 150 mg/kg, with
the highest concentration left onsite at 18.9 mg/kg. The concentrations
are consistent with accepted unlimited use and unrestricted exposure
scenarios. In addition, identified ACM, hazardous waste (slag), and the
UST were removed and disposed offsite.
    7. Backfill--Six (6) composite samples were taken of the stockpiled
native clay placed on the adjacent KCS property by the city of
Alexandria during drainage ditch construction. Two (2) composite
samples were collected from an offsite borrow source used for backfill
during the 2008 and 2009 remedial activity. All samples were analyzed
for RCRA metals. Results were consistent with background, and
specifically met the CLs for lead and antimony. Approximately 9,185
yd\3\ of backfill (7,800 yd\3\ on the northern portion, 1,185 yd\3\ on
the southern portion, and 200 yd\3\ on the canal bank) were used to
fill excavation areas and grade the Site for proper drainage.
    8. Air--During remedial action, efforts were made to control dust
and run-off to limit the amount of materials that may migrate to a
potential receptor. Work areas were continually wetted down to control
potential dust emissions. Air monitoring was conducted during times of
remediation upgradient, downgradient, and within the excavation areas
as well as on personnel working within the exclusion zone. Air
monitoring results did not exceed the Site-specific action levels for
lead, antimony, or total suspended particulates.
    Based on Site construction activity and subsequent confirmation
sampling, all remedial action objectives have been met as well as the
criteria for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The excavation
areas were backfilled with suitable materials meeting Site-specific
CLs, graded for proper drainage, and seeded.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. Throughout the Site's history, the community has been
interested and involved with Site activity. The EPA has kept the
community and other interested parties updated on Site activities
through informational meetings, fact sheets, and public meetings. The
EPA worked closely with the local Lower Third Neighborhood Group.
Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for recommendation
of the deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the
information repositories.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The NCP [40 CFR 300.425(e)] states that a site may be deleted from
the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in
consultation with the State of Louisiana, has determined that all
appropriate response action under CERCLA has been implemented, and no
further response action by the PRP is appropriate.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Louisiana, through the
LDEQ, has determined that all appropriate response actions under
CERCLA, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from
the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective July 13, 2010 unless EPA receives adverse comments by June
14, 2010. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct
final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and
it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and
continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent
to delete and the comments already received. There will be no
additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: April 29, 2010.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

APPENDIX B--[AMENDED]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry
``Ruston Foundry, Alexandria, LA.''
[FR Doc. 2010-11306 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Summary of Conversation with Bureau of Explosives
On September 6, 2018 EPA contacted the Bureau of Explosives (BOE) to determine if the test methods in 40 CFR 261.21(a)(3) were still available. The BOE asked EPA to omit references to the BOE test methods in 40 CFR 261.21(a)(3) because as the BOE explained, DOT removed these methods from 49 CFR Parts 170-189 and replaced as applicable with testing methods based upon the UN recommendations and/or other agencies such as ASTM. EPA subsequently reached out to DOT who confirmed this and as a result, EPA is proposing changes to the references in 261.21(a)(3).


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42345-42347]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17419]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67420; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2012-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Amex
Options Fee Schedule for Professional Customers and Broker-Dealers To
Increase the Transaction Fee for Electronic Executions and Introduce
Volume-Based Tiers for Certain Electronic Executions That Would Be
Charged a Lower per Contract Rate

July 12, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 29, 2012, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE MKT'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III 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 amend the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') for Professional Customers and Broker-Dealers to
increase the transaction fee for electronic executions and introduce
volume-based tiers for certain electronic executions that would be
charged a lower per contract rate. The proposed rule change will be
operative on July 1, 2012. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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 amend the Fee Schedule for Professional
Customers and Broker-Dealers to increase the transaction fee for
electronic executions and introduce volume-based tiers for certain
electronic executions that would be charged a lower per contract rate.
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase the per contract
transaction fee for electronically executed orders for Professional
Customers and Broker-Dealers from $.23 and $.20, respectively, to $.28
per contract for both categories of market participant.\3\ The Exchange
notes that the proposed fee is within the range of Professional
Customer fees presently assessed in the industry, which range from $.20
per contract for non-Select Symbols on the International Securities
Exchange (``ISE'') \4\ to $.50 per contract to take liquidity on The
NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') for non-Penny Pilot securities.\5\
Similarly, the proposed fee for electronic Broker-Dealer transactions
is within the range of fees assessed in the industry, which range from
$.20 to add liquidity in Complex Orders on NASDAQ OMX

PHLX to $.60 to transact in non-Penny Pilot securities on NASDAQ OMX
PHLX.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In March 2012, the Exchange increased the per contract
execution costs for certain participants. See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 66561 (Mar. 9, 2012), 77 FR 15429 (Mar. 15, 2012)
(SR-NYSEAmex-2012-16). However, the Exchange inadvertently did not
increase Broker-Dealer fees to the same level as Professional
Customer fees, as required by the definition of Professional
Customer in Rule 902.NY(18A), which provides that Professional
Customer and Broker-Dealer fees must be the same. The proposed
change would make the fees for Professional Customers and Broker-
Dealers the same level, as they were prior to March 2012.
    \4\ See ISE fee schedule dated June 1, 2012, available at http://www.ise.com/assets/documents/OptionsExchange/legal/fee/fee_schedule.pdf.
    \5\ See NOM Fee Schedule, available at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=OptionsPricing.
    \6\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX Fee Schedule, available at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQOMXPHLXTools/PlatformViewer.asp?selectednode=chp%5F1%5F4%5F1&manual=%2Fnasdaqomxphlx%2Fphlx%2Fphlx%2Drulesbrd%2F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, the Exchange proposes to establish volume-based
tiers for Professional Customers and Broker-Dealers that take liquidity
on the Exchange.\7\ Upon achieving these volume tiers, they will
automatically become eligible for a lower per contract rate on all of
their electronic executions in that month irrespective of whether those
executions resulted from taking or making liquidity. The proposed
volume-based tiers and associated rates per contract are shown
below.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Whenever a participant sends a marketable order to
immediately trade against a resting bid or offer in the Exchange's
Consolidated Order Book, it will be viewed as taking liquidity.
Conversely, whenever a participant posts a bid or offer that does
not immediately execute they will be viewed as making liquidity on
the Exchange.
    \8\ The average daily volume will be calculated by taking the
sum total of a Professional Customer's or Broker-Dealer's taking
liquidity volume and dividing it by the number of days the Exchange
was open for business during the month. Any electronic volumes that
arise from the execution of either Complex Orders or Qualified
Contingent Cross (``QCC'') orders will not be included in the
calculation of average daily volume. QCC orders will remain subject
to the current $.20 per contract pricing in the Fee Schedule
applicable to non-Customers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Average daily volume tiers for professional customers and     Rate per
               broker-dealers taking liquidity                  contract
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 50,000..................................................       $.28
50,001 to 100,000............................................        .26
Over 100,000.................................................        .23
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, for Professional Customers that have average daily volume of
over 100,000 contracts, the fee per contract will remain the same as it
currently is at $.23.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to
clarify that the ``Broker Dealer Manual'' fee and ``Professional
Customer Manual'' fee are the same.
    The proposed change will be operative on July 1, 2012.
 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) \9\ of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the ``Act''), in general, and Section 6(b)(4) \10\ of the Act,
in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities and is not unfairly
discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee increase
for certain electronically executed orders on behalf of Professional
Customers and Broker-Dealers is equitable and reasonable because it
will help offset the Exchange's costs in processing the relatively
higher volume of orders, many of which do not execute, that are being
submitted to the Exchange by Professional Customers and Broker-
Dealers.\11\ Rather than passing the costs of higher order volumes
along to all participants, the Exchange believes it is more equitable
to assess those costs to the participants that are responsible for
them.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange does not believe that the costs associated
with this increased volume are fully addressed through the
Exchange's existing fee structure. Cancellation fees only apply to
public customer orders, the messages-to-contracts ratio fee only
applies after 1 billion messages, and the order-to-trades ratio fee
only applies after the ratio reaches 10,000 orders to 1 execution.
    \12\ At this time, the Exchange is leaving in place current rate
of $.20 per contract for Firms because unlike Professional Customers
and Broker-Dealers, the majority of Firm volumes are transacted in
open outcry or manually, and de facto market making activity by Firm
participants is very limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that other participants pay substantially more
for the ability to trade on the Exchange and, as such, the proposed
amount of the increase is reasonable. For example, Market Makers have
much higher fixed monthly costs as compared to Professional Customers
and Broker-Dealers. A Market Maker seeking to stream quotes in the
entire universe of names traded on the Exchange would have to pay
$20,000 per month in Amex Trading Permit (``ATP'') fees. In addition, a
Market Maker acting as a Specialist, e-Specialist, or Directed Order
Market Maker will incur monthly Rights Fees that range from $75 per
option to $1,500 per option. Professional Customers and Broker-Dealers,
who access the Exchange via an order routing firm, pay only $500 per
month in ATP fees (assuming the cost is passed back to them), and for
that low monthly cost are able to send orders in all issues traded on
the Exchange.\13\ For Broker-Dealers who are ATP Holders and do access
the Exchange directly, they will incur the monthly ATP fee of $500 and
in turn have the ability to send orders in all issues traded on the
Exchange. Other participants have a much higher per contract cost to
trade on the Exchange, such as Non-NYSE Amex Options Market Makers, who
pay $.43 per contract to transact on the Exchange electronically. Given
these facts, coupled with the aforementioned range in Professional
Customer and Broker-Dealer fees on other exchanges, the Exchange
believes that the proposed increase is both reasonable and equitable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes that it has proposed to increase the ATP
fees for an order routing firm from $500 per month to $1,000 per
month effective July 1, 2012. See SR-NYSEMKT-2012-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further notes that Broker-Dealers and Professional
Customers may directly compete with Market Makers; unlike Customers,
they are not prohibited from de facto market making.\14\ Both Broker-
Dealers and Professional Customers have a measurable economic advantage
relative to a NYSE Amex Options Market Maker's cost when trading with
Customer order flow. For example, an NYSE Amex Options Market Maker
trading against a Customer order in a non-Penny Pilot name will pay as
much as $.85 in transaction charges, whereas under the proposal, both
Broker-Dealers and Professional Customers will pay a maximum of $.28
per contract.\15\ The proposed fee increase will diminish the maximum
per contract differential between Market Makers with quoting
obligations who trade against Customers versus Broker-Dealers and
Professional Customers who do not have such obligations and who may
trade electronically against Customers in a manner that the Exchange
believes is more equitable in light of the differing roles such
participants play on the Exchange and the attendant costs, benefits,
and obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Rule 995NY(b).
    \15\ NYSE Amex Options Market Makers must pay marketing charges
of $.65 per contract when they trade contra to a Customer order
electronically. This is in addition to the Exchange transaction fee
of $.20 per contract applicable to a NYSE Amex Options Market Maker.
The Exchange notes that the marketing charges are used by NYSE Amex
Options Market Makers to attract Customer order flow to the
Exchange. Such order flow is beneficial to all participants on the
Exchange, including Broker-Dealers and Professional Customers who
are permitted to act as a de facto market maker by placing
electronic orders on both sides of the market simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change to increase fees as high
as $.28 per contract for lower volume Professional Customer and Broker-
Dealer participants is not unfairly discriminatory as the change will
apply to all Professional Customers and Broker-Dealers equally.
Further, Professional Customers and Broker-Dealers are free to change
the manner in which they access the Exchange. A Professional Customer
may, by sending fewer than 390 orders per day across the industry,
begin participating as a

Customer and avoid incurring any transaction fees. Additionally
Professional Customers may elect to register as a Broker-Dealer and,
once registered as a Broker-Dealer, may apply to become Market Makers
to transact on a proprietary basis as Market Makers or become ATP
Holders to transact on the Exchange as a Firm. In light of the ability
to access the Exchange in a variety of ways, each of which is priced
differently, Professional Customers, Broker-Dealers and other
participants may access the Exchange in a manner that makes the most
economic sense for them.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to establish volume-
based tiers for Professional Customers and Broker-Dealers that transact
electronically is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory. As noted previously, they have lower aggregate fees
when compared to, for example, the ATP fees incurred by a NYSE Amex
Market Maker to quote the entire universe of names traded on the
Exchange. Further, the establishment of the tiers will enable
Professional Customers and Broker-Dealers that transact in sufficient
volumes to obtain a lower per contract rate on all of their electronic
volumes in a given month. This is reasonable and equitable given that a
higher volume of marketable orders, which these volume tiers will
encourage, is beneficial to other Exchange participants due to the
increased opportunity to trade. The Exchange believes the proposed
change to adopt volume-based tiers for Professional Customers and
Broker-Dealers that transact electronically is not unfairly
discriminatory because the change will apply to all participants in
those categories equally.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
determine that such venues offer more favorable trading conditions and
rates.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the amendment of the ``Broker
Dealer Manual'' and ``Professional Customer Manual'' fees in the Fee
Schedule is equitable and reasonable because it would result in
increased clarity in the Fee Schedule regarding such fees.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \16\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \17\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by NYSE MKT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2012-17 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-NYSEMKT-2012-17. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-NYSEMKT-2012-17 and should
be submitted on or before August 8, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17419 Filed 7-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P