[Federal Register: May 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 90)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26131-26137]
[DOCID:fr11my10-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0654; FRL-9146-8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region II is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Asbestos Dump
Superfund Site (Site), located in Long Hill Township and Harding
Township, New Jersey, 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 New Jersey, through the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), because EPA has
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other
than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective July 12, 2010 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by June 10, 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-2009-0654, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Theresa Hwilka, Remedial
Project Manager<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Pat Seppi, Community Involvement
Coordinator.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Theresa Hwilka, Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Emergency & Remedial
Response Division, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007; or Pat
Seppi, Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II, Public Affairs Division, 290 Broadway, 26th Floor,
New York, NY 10007.
     Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II, Emergency & Remedial Response Division, 290 Broadway, 19th
Floor, New York, NY 10007. 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-
2009-0654. 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.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Superfund Records Center,
290 Broadway, Room 1828.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday; and at Long Hill
Township Public Library, 917 Valley Road, Gillette, New Jersey 07933.
(908) 647-2088.
    Hours: 10 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through Thursday. 10 a.m. to 5
p.m., Friday and Saturday. 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., Sunday (Closed on Sundays
in July and August).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theresa Hwilka, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway,
New

York, NY 10007,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 II is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Asbestos Dump Superfund site (Site), from the National Priorities
List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is
the Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),
which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (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 (Fund). 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 12, 2010 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by June 10, 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 Asbestos Dump 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.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    1. EPA consulted with the State of New Jersey 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. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 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 a major local newspaper, Courier News.
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 information below provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL. For each Operable Unit there is a discussion section
containing information on the following: (1) Site background and
history; (2) remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS); (3)
selected remedy; (4) response actions; (5) cleanup goals; (6) operation
and maintenance; (7) five year reviews; and (8) community involvement.
    The Asbestos Dump Superfund Site (the Site), CERCLIS ID
NJD980654149, consists of four separate properties which were addressed
in three discrete operable units (OUs). OU1 consists of the Millington
site, located in Millington, New Jersey. OU2 consists of the New Vernon
Road and White Bridge Road ``satellite'' sites, both of which are
located in Meyersville, New Jersey. OU3 consists of the third satellite
site, known as the Dietzman Tract, which is located in Harding
Township, New Jersey. The Site was placed on the National Priorities
List (NPL) in September 1983 (48 FR 40658).
    Given the nature of this Site, this Direct Final Notice of Deletion
will summarize the history, remedies and remedial actions taken for
each individual OU.

OU-1

Site Background and History
    OU1 consists of the Millington site which is an 11 acre commercial

property located at 50 Division Avenue in Millington, New Jersey. The
site is bounded on the west by the Passaic River, on the north by the
Millington Train Station, and on the east and south by commercial and
private residences, respectively. Currently owned by Tifa Ltd., this
parcel was formerly utilized as an asbestos processing plant that had
several previous owners. Manufacturing of asbestos products at the
Millington site began in 1927 by Asbestos Ltd., which engaged in the
fiberization and sale of asbestos until 1946. From 1946 until 1953, the
plant was owned and operated by Smith Asbestos, Inc., a manufacturer of
asbestos roofing and siding. During this later period, asbestos
sediment from water settling ponds was disposed of on-site.
    In May 1953, the property was acquired by the National Gypsum
Company (NGC), which manufactured cement asbestos siding and roofing
sheets at the plant until 1975. During this period, waste products,
consisting of broken siding and asbestos fibers were dumped on a five
acre area of the property. This included a 330 by 75 foot area (later
referred to as the asbestos mound) where predominantly asbestos fibers
were disposed. It is estimated that 90,000 cubic yards of asbestos
waste was disposed of on-site.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
    RI/FS activities were initiated by NGC in 1986 and completed in
1987. The primary contaminant of concern was asbestos. Soil borings and
historical information revealed that the upland portion of site
contained broken asbestos tiles and siding, while the asbestos mound
was found to contain predominantly asbestos fibers. The upland and
asbestos mound portions of the site were covered with varying
thicknesses of topsoil; however, exposed areas of asbestos fibers were
observed on the slope of the asbestos mound adjacent to the Passaic
River. Extensive slope stability analyses indicated that the asbestos
mound was relatively stable; however, the slope was unprotected from
surface erosion and the potential destabilizing effects of flooding
along the Passaic River. Analysis of groundwater samples revealed low
concentrations of mercury and asbestos related to disposal activities
at the site. Mercury was detected in groundwater in concentrations
exceeding drinking water standards in a limited number of samples;
however, the limited mercury contamination remained within the
footprint of the landfill and did not pose an unacceptable human health
risk. As a result, groundwater alternatives were not evaluated.
Asbestos was detected at concentrations substantially below the
proposed EPA drinking water standard. The RI and FS reports were
completed in September 1988.
Selected Remedy
    On September 30, 1988, EPA issued a ROD for OU1. The major
components of the selected remedy include the following: (1)
Installation of a two-foot soil cover on areas of exposed or minimally
covered asbestos; (2) installation of a chain-link security fence to
restrict access to the asbestos mound; (3) construction of slope
protection/stabilization measures along the asbestos mound embankment;
(4) construction of surface run-off diversion channels on top of the
asbestos mound; (5) operation and maintenance of the remedy; (6) long-
term monitoring; (7) institutional controls to restrict on-site
groundwater usage and limit development on the asbestos fill areas; and
(8) treatability studies of technologies for permanent destruction or
immobilization of asbestos.
Response Actions
    OU1 remedial action activities were conducted pursuant to the 1988
ROD. EPA entered into an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) who in turn provided oversight during all
remedial activities. USACE contracted IT Corporation (IT) to complete
the remedial actions in accordance with the contract documents and all
applicable State and Federal regulations.
    Mobilization activities began on June 17, 1999 and included the
delivery of general materials, initiation of soil erosion and sediment
control measures, and clearing and grubbing activities. The primary
remedial construction activities included, but were not limited to, the
following: (1) Access road construction--completed in November 1999;
(2) retaining wall construction for slope stabilization--completed in
May 2000; and (3) cap construction operations and site restoration--
completed in May 2000. Capping activities consisted of relocating
excavated material, closing the asbestos mound, grading the asbestos-
containing material (ACM) to the required elevations, installation of a
layer of geotextile and geogrid material, and the placement and grading
of a two-foot soil cover. A retaining wall was installed at the toe of
the asbestos mound for stabilization purposes. The wall is an average
of 10 feet in height and 516 feet long. The Final RA Report for OU1 was
approved by EPA in September 2001.
    EPA also conducted treatability studies to fulfill the OU1 ROD
requirement for evaluating innovative treatment technologies that may
be effective in permanently remediating asbestos. Since the issuance of
the OU1 ROD, EPA has performed treatability studies on solidification/
stabilization and vitrification (thermal treatment resulting in an
asbestos-free glass) and has evaluated potential applicability of
thermochemical asbestos conversion (destruction) technologies. EPA
believes that the OU1 remedy, including the cap constructed over the
ACM waste and institutional controls, is protective and will remain
protective of human health and the environment. Solidification and
stabilization of the ACM was incorporated into the OU2 remedy.
Cleanup Goals
    The cleanup goal for the Site was to contain the migration of
asbestos. The objective was achieved through response actions conducted
between June 1999 and June 2000 which included the consolidation of ACM
into the landfill area and the construction of the landfill cap.
Operations and Maintenance
    In September 2001, EPA approved the Final RA Report as well as the
30-Year Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan. NJDEP is currently
responsible for operation and maintenance activities. The O&M Plan
documents the installation of a six-foot high chain link security fence
which surrounds the site on its north, east and south limits.
Furthermore, the O&M Plan specifies that periodic inspections are
conducted of all OU1 design components including the retaining wall,
perimeter access fence, capped area, and mowing/pruning of the ACM
cover and surrounding areas. Monitoring of surface water and sediment
sampling of the Passaic River along with groundwater monitoring in
accordance with the New Jersey landfill closure requirements is also
included in the O&M Plan. Monitoring and sampling is conducted once
every 5 years.
    In addition to O&M activities, the OU1 site is protected by
institutional controls. A Deed Notice was filed by Tifa Realty, Inc.,
in the Morris County, New Jersey, Office of the County Clerk, on
September 8, 2008 for the OU1 Millington property designated as Block
12301, Lot 1 on the Long Hill Township tax map. The Deed Notice has
been filed in Deed Book 21152, Page 508. The type of restrictions
placed on the OU1 Millington property significantly limit

any type of intrusion onto the landfill cap thereby restricting on-site
groundwater usage and limiting development on the asbestos fill areas.
Any future use of the landfill area must be designed to protect the
integrity of the components of the landfill.

OU-2

Site Background and History
    OU2 consists of the New Vernon Road and White Bridge Road sites.
The OU2 New Vernon Road site is located at 237 New Vernon Road in
Meyersville, Long Hill Township, Morris County, New Jersey. The New
Vernon Road site consists of approximately 30 acres of land and is
currently bounded by the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (GSNWR)
to the north, tracts of wooded and wetland areas to the east and south,
and New Vernon Road to the west. The property previously included two
residences and a large garage structure.
    From 1945 through 1980 the privately owned New Vernon Road site was
used for farming. From 1968 to 1971, ACM generated by NGC, including
asbestos fibers, broken asbestos tiles, and siding, was deposited
throughout the site. Large amounts of ACM were deposited in the central
portion of the property in a large depression. Asbestos was also
detected in other areas of the property.
    The White Bridge Road site is located at 651 White Bridge Road in
Long Hill Township, NJ. The White Bridge Road site is approximately two
miles away from the New Vernon Road site and consists of approximately
12 acres of privately owned land, as well as adjoining property, which
is part of the GSNWR, in Meyersville, New Jersey. From 1945 through
1969, the White Bridge Road site had been used for farming. In 1970,
the property was purchased by the current residents. From 1970 to 1975,
ACM, consisting of asbestos tiles and siding from the NGC, was disposed
of on the property. Subsequent to these disposal activities, the
current owner converted the property into a horse farm with stables, a
horse riding track, and grazing fields. The horse riding track was
comprised of large amounts of ACM mixed with soils. ACM had also been
detected in other areas of the site.
    The remedy for the White Bridge Road portion of OU2 was completed
and this portion of the site was deleted from the NPL in February 2002
(67 FR 5955). Therefore, the White Bridge Road portion of the Asbestos
Dump Site is not included in this Notice of Deletion.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
    EPA initiated a RI/FS in the fall of 1990 to supplement the NGC RI
and fully characterize the extent of asbestos contamination at the OU2
portion of the Site. The RI included a hydrogeological investigation,
extensive sampling and subsequent laboratory analysis of subsurface
soils, sediments, surface water, groundwater, potable water and air.
The data indicated the presence of elevated levels of asbestos in the
soil at both the New Vernon Road and White Bridge Road residential
properties. With respect to groundwater, sampling results indicated
that asbestos was not detected in levels above the analytical detection
limit for all groundwater samples analyzed. Asbestos was determined to
be present in air sample at both OU2 sites as a result of soil
contamination. EPA determined that an immediate removal action was
necessary to address the imminent threat posed by the contamination.
Removal activities were conducted in the fall of 1990 to temporarily
reduce the potential for airborne asbestos fibers and to restrict
access. Removal activities included installation of fences, air and
soil sample collection, decontamination of the residences, and visual
inspection of ACM. RI field work was completed in 1990 and the RI and
FS reports were completed in June 1991.
Selected Remedy
    On September 27, 1991, EPA issued a ROD documenting the remedy for
OU2. The ROD documented the remedial actions for both the New Vernon
Road property and the White Bridge Road property. The major components
of the selected remedy include the following: (1) In-situ
solidification/stabilization of asbestos contaminated soils; (2)
appropriate environmental monitoring to confirm the effectiveness of
the remedy; and (3) implementation of institutional controls to
restrict future subsurface activities and assure the integrity of the
treated waste.
    TRC and TAMS Consultants, Inc. initiated the Remedial Design (RD)
in 1991 under contract with EPA. A solidification/stabilization
treatability study was performed by TRC as part of the RD. Based upon
the results of the treatability study, the solidification/stabilization
depth was changed prior to the issuance of the Final Design Report in
January 1993 to require that the solidified/stabilized mass be
constructed only above the groundwater table. EPA issued an Explanation
of Significant Differences (ESD) on October 20, 1993 to modify the
remedy specified in the OU2 ROD.
Response Actions
    Remedial activities were conducted in two phases. Phase I
activities at the New Vernon Road site were initiated in August 1994
and were completed in December 1994. Phase I activities included the
following: (1) Excavation and consolidation of ACM; (2) in-situ
solidification/stabilization of ACM; (3) impermeable cover and
perimeter infiltration trench construction; (4) placement of rip rap
along the sides of the cap for slope stability protection; and (5)
backfill of excavation areas excluding topsoil and seeding. The
solidification process was considered complete when the cement mixture
had set and quality control sample results indicated that the
solidified mass conformed to the specified design criteria. Upon
completion of the solidification/stabilization process, the site was
graded and a minimum of six inches of soil was placed over the
solidified material. The protective cap placed on the solidified soil
consisted of several components including six inches of stone
screenings, a geomembrane liner, a drainage layer consisting of a
geocomposite, a 24 inch layer of common fill and a vegetative layer
consisting of six inches of topsoil and grass. After the
implementation, air monitoring was performed to demonstrate the
effectiveness of this remedy.
    The second phase of the remedial action activities was initiated in
March 1995 and was intended to include site restoration work such as
final grading with topsoil, grass establishment, planting, wetlands
restoration, asphalt paving, and demobilization. The second phase was
halted when EPA issued a Stop Work Order on March 30, 1995. EPA
subsequently issued a Cure Notice, in April 1995, to CDM Federal
Programs Corporation (CDM), an EPA contractor, for failure to meet the
contract specification for the use of fill at both the New Vernon Road
and White Bridge Road properties. The Cure Response cleanup activities
at New Vernon Road were initiated in July 1998 and completed by March
1999. The USACE provided oversight of the Cure Response cleanup
activities. In September 2000, EPA approved the Remedial Action Report
for the New Vernon Road portion of OU2.
Cleanup Goals
    The cleanup goal for the Site was to contain the migration of
asbestos. Asbestos containing materials on the OU2 properties that were
either

detected by visual inspection or analytically (having greater than 0.5%
asbestos, which is the detection limit of the TEM analytical method)
were addressed in the remedy. The objective was achieved through
consolidation of ACM, in-situ solidification/stabilization of asbestos
contaminated soils, environmental monitoring to confirm the
effectiveness of the remedy, and implementation of institutional
controls to restrict future subsurface activities and assure the
integrity of the treated waste. Response actions for OU2 were conducted
between August 1994 and March 1999.
Operations and Maintenance
    In June 2001, an O&M plan for the New Vernon Road site was
finalized. The overall objective of the O&M Plan is to provide for
periodic inspection, maintenance, and monitoring to evaluate and
maintain the effectiveness of the remedy implemented at the site. The
landfill cap, perimeter infiltration trench and environmental
monitoring, are the key components of the O&M Plan. Environmental
monitoring includes the collection and analysis of groundwater and
monitoring of wildlife species from the area around the New Vernon Road
site.
    In January 2002, EPA, NJDEP and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(FWS) reached an agreement on the terms of the transfer of a portion of
the New Vernon Road property to FWS to expand the GSNWR. In September
2002, an approximately 25 acre portion of the New Vernon Road property
(Block 225, Lot 30) was formally transferred to FWS and is now in use
as part of the Refuge. This Lot also includes the residential
structures along New Vernon Road. The remaining five acre portion of
the property (Block 225, Lot 30.03), which contains the solidified ACM,
was transferred to the State of New Jersey. NJDEP is conducting the O&M
activities on the five acre parcel of the property.
    Subsequent to the division of the New Vernon Road property between
NJDEP and FWS, separate Deed Notices were filed for Block 225, Lots 30
and 30.03. The Deed Notice for Block 225, Lot 30 was filed in the
Morris County, New Jersey, Office of the County Clerk on August 20,
2002. The Deed Notice includes a ``Limited Subsurface Use Area'' which
exists within 10 feet of the foundation of the residences. This area is
restricted because it could not be fully investigated for the presence
of asbestos because such and investigation would have compromised the
integrity of the substructure. Digging and excavating more than 12
inches below the surface of the Limited Subsurface Area is prohibited
unless approved by EPA or NJDEP. The Deed Notice for Block 225-Lot
30.03, which pertains to the five acre capped OU2 parcel, was filed in
the Morris County, New Jersey, Office of the County Clerk on October
22, 2002. The Deed Notice specifies the restrictions placed on the
capped area of OU2. The Deed Notice does not permit any disturbance of
the surface or subsurface of the capped area including, but not limited
to filling, drilling, excavation, or the removal of topsoil, sediments,
rock or minerals, or by construction, planting anything other than
grass or wildflowers, or changing the topography in any manner;
however, topsoil may be added to make repairs in accordance with the
Deed Notice. Changing, damaging or removing the perimeter trench around
the solidified mass, the manholes or the monitoring wells is also
prohibited.

OU-3

Site Background and History
    OU3 consists of the former Dietzman Tract which is a seven acre
parcel of land located in the GSNWR, about two miles southeast of the
New Vernon Road portion of the site. The GSNWR, currently owned by the
FWS, covers approximately 7,400 acres of swamp, wooded, and wetland
areas. The refuge is managed by FWS as a wildlife habitat and for
recreational purposes. The Dietzman Tract included the following four
discrete areas: (1) Site A--a five acre asbestos contaminated dump; (2)
Site B--a half acre dump consisting of refuse and covered with ACM; (3)
Unimproved Access Road (UAR)--a road surfaced with ACM which leads to
Site A and Site B; and (4) three small refuse areas adjoining Site B
(Refuse Areas 1, 3 and 6).
    The above mentioned areas of OU3 were used for the disposal of
refuse collected from neighboring communities. Along with refuse, ACM
and other industrial wastes from the NGC plant in Millington were
trucked to the OU3 site for disposal. The disposal of ACM began in 1959
and ended in 1968 when the FWS acquired the property. Approximately
40,000 cubic yards of ACM and refuse were delineated at OU3.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
    The supplemental RI, known as the Phase II RI, for OU3 was needed
to fill data gaps remaining from prior investigations to characterize
the nature and extent of contamination at OU3. Another goal of the
Phase II RI was to collect geotechnical data for evaluation of remedial
alternatives in the FS. RI activities included, but were not limited
to, the following: (1) Characterization of the organic and inorganic
contaminants and asbestos in the site media; (2) sampling of
groundwater from 15 monitoring wells; (3) sampling of surface water;
and (4) excavation of drums from Site A.
    Early Phase II RI field activities commenced in January 1996.
Removal actions were conducted in the Fall of 1996 to address buried
drums, and air quality monitoring was completed in December 1996. The
Phase II RI report was completed and submitted to EPA in 1997. The
report indicated that OU3 was found to contain approximately 36,800
cubic yards of ACM, 3,800 cubic yards of refuse debris, an estimated
207 buried drums at Site A, and areas of metal-impacted soil and ACM.
Buried drums located at Site A were removed in September 1997. FWS
completed their FS Report in 1997 which outlined general response
actions to satisfy the remedial action objectives for OU3 and recommend
a remedy.
Selected Remedy
    On September 8, 1998, EPA issued a ROD for OU3. The major
components of the selected remedy include the following: (1) Access
improvements; (2) long-term drainage improvements, and short-term
erosion control measures; (3) drum removal activities (which were
completed in September 1997 as a time-critical, non-emergency removal
prior to implementation of the preferred alternative), including post-
excavation and waste classification sampling; (4) removal and off-site
disposal of soils having lead concentrations greater than 218 mg/kg
(completed, Spring 1998); (5) consolidation of Site B ACM into Site A
(completed, Spring 1998); (6) placement of a biotic cover over Site A;
(7) implementation of institutional controls to ensure the continued
integrity of the drainage and cover activities; and (8) assessment of
wetland impacts and wetlands restoration.
Response Actions
    The FWS contracted the USACE to perform remedial design and
construction activities. The USACE subcontracted the design and
construction activities to IT Corp. A three-phase approach was
developed for the remediation of the OU3 areas described in the
previous OU3 background section.
    Phase 1, addressed the activities including site access
improvement, drainage improvement and drum removal from Site A. Access
to Site A was improved by upgrading the surface

of the UAR and clearing dense vegetation covering Site A. The site
drainage was enhanced by clearing the channel constriction and blockage
where the UAR crosses the Old Great Brook Channel northwest of Site A
and a culvert system was placed in the channel to maintain vehicle
access to Site B and improve site drainage. After drainage improvements
were completed, drum excavation and removal, and off-site disposal of
the drums and miscellaneous debris was initiated and completed in
October 1997. Post excavation sampling confirmed that contaminants in
the drums had not been released to the soil and therefore were not
released to groundwater above the regulatory standards before or during
removal. Phase 1 work was completed in 1997.
    The Phase 2 removal action consisted of excavation, removal, and
off-site disposal of lead-contaminated soils located at Site B, Refuse
Area 1, and Refuse Area 6 (as defined in the OU3
background section). The action was initiated in February 1998 and was
completed in May 1998. Removal activities also included the
consolidation of ACM from Site B onto Site A.
    Phase 3, the final remedial action phase, consisted of the
excavation and removal of ACM from the UAR, consolidation of the
excavated UAR material to Site A, backfilling the excavated portions of
the UAR, and construction of the biotic cap on Site A. Cap construction
activities included the installation of an anchor trench on the west
side of the landfill, compaction of landfill material, placement of
geotextile fabric (woven and non-woven) and placement of geonet for the
biotic barrier. Construction of the biotic cap on the Site A landfill
was considered to be complete after a final inspection was conducted in
September 1999.
    The disturbed and created wetlands areas were restored by placing a
final soil cover, consisting of six inches of organic sediment, over
the areas. The sediment contained a natural seed bank with species
indigenous to adjacent wetlands. The progress of wetlands restoration
efforts continues to be monitored by FWS.
    On September 29, 1999, EPA approved the Final Remedial Action
Report for OU3, which signified the completion of OU3 remedial
activities.
Cleanup Goals
    The cleanup goal for the Site was to contain the migration of
asbestos. OU3 ROD cleanup activities consisted of drum removal, removal
of lead contaminated soils and consolidation and capping of ACM. The
cleanup objective was achieved through the response actions conducted
between September 1997 and September 1999.
Operations and Maintenance
    The O&M Plan for OU3 includes maintenance of the permanent features
such as the surface water drainage improvements and the Site A biotic
cap. The O&M plan also requires the implementation of a groundwater
monitoring program that meets the requirements of the New Jersey
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System regulations. FWS is responsible
for implementing the OU3 O&M plan.
    In addition to O&M activities, FWS has implemented institutional
controls at OU3 to ensure the continued integrity of the capped areas.
OU3 institutional controls include the following: (1) Restricted access
via a gated road; (2) posted signs indicating closed areas; (3) law
enforcement presence; (4) altered trail system to divert people from
the landfill area; and (5) periodic inspections. The OU3 property is
located entirely within the GSNWR. As part of the National Wilderness
Area, the remediated OU3 area is protected from development or future
land uses that might potentially conflict with the remedial design. Any
changes to this designation would be subject to Congressional approval.
As such, the land will be managed in perpetuity as wildlife habitat
with very limited public use and access insofar as these activities are
consistent and compatible with the O&M actions that have been
prescribed for the Site.
Five Year Review for All Operable Units
    The first Five-Year Review was completed for the Site in September
2000. The results of the second Five-Year Review, which was completed
in September 2005, indicated that there is no significant off-site
migration of contaminants and that the remedies for OU1, OU2 and OU3
are functioning as intended by the respective RODs. Since contaminants
remain contained on-site, EPA will continue to conduct statutory five-
year reviews of the implemented remedies. The next review is scheduled
to be completed by September 2010.
Community Involvement for All Operable Units
    Community involvement activities for the Asbestos Dump Superfund
Site have been conducted in accordance with CERCLA requirements. Public
meetings have been held for remedial milestones such as the
presentation of the Proposed Plan, RI and FS reports and for the public
comment period. Additional meetings were held with the public and/or
stakeholders on an as needed basis throughout the remedial process.
Documents comprising the administrative record were made available to
the public at the Passaic Township Free Public Library in Sterling, New
Jersey. Community notifications were also issued for the site Five-Year
Reviews. A more detailed account of community involvement activities
may be found in the Asbestos Dump Superfund Site Close Out Report.
Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP
    The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if ``all
appropriate responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required'' or ``all appropriate Fund-
financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further
response action by responsible parties is appropriate''. 40 CFR
300.425(e)(1). EPA, with concurrence of the State of New Jersey through
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection by a letter dated
February 19, 2009, believes these criteria for deletion have been
satisfied. Therefore, EPA is proposing the deletion of the site from
the NPL. All of the completion requirements from the site have been met
as described in the Superfund Final Close-Out Report, dated November
10, 2009. Documents supporting this action are available in the site
file and deletion dockets.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of New Jersey through the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, has determined that
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews, 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 12, 2010 unless EPA receives adverse comments by June
10, 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 1, 2010.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

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.

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ``Asbestos
Dump, Millington, NJ'' from the table.

[FR Doc. 2010-10849 Filed 5-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28430-28431]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0013]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 17 individuals from the
hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on May 14, 2021. The exemptions
expire on May 14, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2021-0013, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access
to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On April 6, 2021, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 17 individuals requesting an exemption from the
hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (86 FR
17880). The public comment period ended on May 6, 2021, and two
comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. Of the two comments
received, one was in support of Jeffrey Haley's hearing exemption
application and the other was in support of Elizabeth Keyes' hearing
exemption application.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008
Evidence Report, ``Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function
and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.'' The evidence report reached two
conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety:
(1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and
crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2)
evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population
does not support the contention that individuals with hearing
impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the
Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial
Driver's License Information System, for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management
Information System. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the
driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency. Each
applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving history. Based on an
individual assessment of each applicant that focused on whether an
equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting
each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to
restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
do not pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the hearing standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in Sec.
390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and
(3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with
passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the
exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the applicable
CDL testing requirements.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 17 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, Sec.
391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:

Timothy Allen (LA)
David Blough (IN)
Adrian Crutchfield (MO)
Frederick Fleetwood (NC)
Hunter Flower (MI)
Christopher Gilmore (TX)
Jeffrey Haley (MN)
Jorge Hernandez (TX)
Kelvin Jarman (IL)
Elizabeth Keyes (MN)
Ted McCracken (OR)
Mitchel Moers (FL)
Christopher Ramaza-Cruz (CT)
Nico Ruiz (CA)
Thomas Sitzman (OH)
Susana Valenzuela (CA)
Michael Woodberry (NJ)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11111 Filed 5-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: April 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 22882-22884]
[DOCID:fr30ap10-150]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61971; File No. SR-Phlx-2010-62]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Routing Fees

April 23, 2010.
    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 April 16, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. 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 its fees governing pricing for
Exchange members using the Phlx XL II system,\3\ for routing
standardized equity and index option customer orders to away markets
for execution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For a complete description of Phlx XL II, see Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3,
2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32). The instant proposed fees will apply only
to option orders entered into, and routed by, the Phlx XL II system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Exchange's Fee Schedule pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated this
proposal to be operative for trades settling on or after April 19,
2010.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, 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 Exchange 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 these 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to recoup costs that the
Exchange incurs for routing and executing customer orders in equity and
index options to away markets.
    In May 2009, the Exchange adopted Rule 1080(m)(iii)(A) to establish
Nasdaq Options Services LLC (``NOS''), a member of the Exchange, as the
Exchange's exclusive order router.\4\ NOS is utilized by the Phlx XL II
system solely to route orders in options listed and open for trading on
the Phlx XL II system to destination markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to add a ``professional'' fee category to its
Routing Fees. The Exchange defines a ``professional'' as any person or
entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii)
places more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during
a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s) \5\ (hereinafter
``Professional'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Professional will be treated in the same manner as an off-
floor broker-dealer for purposes of Rules 1014(g) (except with
respect to all-or-none orders, which will be treated like customer
orders), 1033(e), 1064.02 (except professional orders will be
considered customer orders subject to facilitation), and 1080.08 as
well as Options Floor Procedure Advices B-6, B-11 and F-5. Member
organizations must indicate whether orders are for professionals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to charge the following Professional Routing
Fees: (i) A $0.26 per contract side fee for Professional orders routed
to NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'') in all options; (ii) a $0.36 per
contract side fee for Professional orders routed to BATS Exchange, Inc.
(``BATS'') in all options; (iii) a $.06 per contract side fee for
Professional orders routed to the Boston Options Exchange Group LLC
(``BOX'') in all options; (iv) a $0.26 per contract fee for
Professional orders routed to the Chicago Board of Options Exchange,
Inc. (``CBOE'') in all options; (v) a $.06 per contract side fee for
Professional orders routed to the International Securities Exchange,
LLC (``ISE'') in all options; (vi) a $0.50 per contract side fee for
Professional orders routed to NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSEArca'') in penny
options; (vii) a $.06 per contract side fee for Professional orders
routed to NYSEArca in all other options (excluding penny options);
(viii) a $.40 per contract side fee for Professional orders routed to
NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') in penny options; and (ix) a $.56 per
contract side fee for Professional orders routed to NOM in the NASDAQ
100 Index Option (``NDX'') and the mini NASDAQ 100 Index Option
(``MNX''). The proposed Professional Routing Fees for NYSE Amex and
CBOE are higher for a Professional as opposed to a customer ($0.26
versus $0.06) because of the $.20 transaction fees that both NYSE Amex
and CBOE assess for Professional orders.\6\ Since these transaction
charges do not exist for customer orders, the customer Routing Fees are
lower for these away markets as compared to the Professional Routing
Fees.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule and CBOE Fees Schedule.
    \7\ See E-mail from Angela S. Dunn, Assistant General Counsel,
Phlx, to Richard R. Holley, Senior Special Counsel, Johnna B.
Dumler, Special Counsel, and Daniel T. Gien, Staff Attorney,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, dated April 22, 2010
(making clarifying changes to this paragraph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange's Fee Schedule includes Routing Fees to the
aforementioned exchanges for customer orders. Professional orders are
currently assessed these customer Routing Fees.\8\ The existing
customer routing fees will be unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61905 (April 14,
2010), 75 FR 20871 (April 21, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing these charges in order to recoup clearing
and transaction charges which are incurred by the Exchange when orders
are routed to these away markets.\9\ As with all fees, the Exchange may
adjust these Routing Fees in response to competitive conditions by
filing a new proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Each destination market's transaction charge varies and
there is a standard clearing charge for each transaction incurred by
the Exchange. The Exchange basis [sic] the above fees on the total
of these costs for each destination market in assessing fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Exchange's Fee Schedule pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated this
proposal to be operative for trades settling on or after April 19,
2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its schedule of
fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \11\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members because Exchange members would
equally be assessed the costs incurred by the Exchange to route
customer orders to away markets on behalf of its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \12\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \13\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-Phlx-2010-62 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-Phlx-2010-62. 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 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
a.m. and 3 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-Phlx-2010-62 and should be
submitted on or before May 21, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10030 Filed 4-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


 TABLE 2. ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS 40 CFR PART 60, SUBPART BBB ( A) ( B) ( C= AxB) ( D) ( E= CxD) ( F)

Occurrences/ Hours/

Hours/ respondent/ respondent/ Respondents/ Hours/ Cost/ c occurrence year year year year year Continuation . . .

1. APPLICATIONS ............................ not applicable.........................

2. SURVEYS AND STUDIES ............................ not applicable.........................

3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS A. Read Instructions Existing plants 1 1 1 4.3 d 4.3 237.96 B. Required Activities Existing Plants a + b Initial performance test 240 5 e 1,200 0 0 0 Repeat of performance test 240 1 e 240 0 0 0 C. Create Information See 3B.

D. Gather Existing Information See 3E.

E. Write Report Existing Plants a + b Notification Requirements: f Not applicable  construction/ reconstruction  anticipated startup  actual startup  initial performance test  physical/ operational changes Notification of Method 25A test g 4 1 4 3 12 664.08 Report of change in operating parameters d 4 2 8 4.3 34.4 1,903.70 Report of performance test See 3B.

Semi annual exceedance rep. h 10 2 20 14.3 286.7 15,864.13 Annual Report of formulation data/ Method 24 results i 4 1 4 43 172.0 9,518.48 Reporting Subtotal 509.4 28,188.35 TABLE 2. ANNUAL BURDEN OF REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS NSPS, SUBPART BBB ( A) ( B) ( C= AxB) ( D) ( E= CxD) ( F)

Occurrences/ Hours/

Hours/ respondent/ respondent/ Respondents/ Hours/ Cost/ b 2 occurrence year year year year year 4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS Existing Plants A. Read Instructions See 3A.

B. Plan Activities See 4C.

C. Implement Activities See 3B.

D. Develop Record System ............................ not applicable.........................

E. Time to Enter Information Records of startups,

shutdown, malfunction, etc. 0.5 j 36 k 18 43 774.0 42,833.16 Records of operating parameters 1 l 252 m 252 43 10,836.0 599,664.24 Records of monthly performance test 2 12 24 43 1,032.0 57,110.88 F. Train Personnel ............................ not applicable.........................

G. Audits ............................ not applicable.........................

H. Subtotal 12,642.0 699,608.30 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 13,151.4 727,796.63 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Assumptions:

a Assume there are 43 rubber tire manufacturing plants, one of which only mixes rubber compound. Also, that there will be no industry growth in the next three years. The reporting requirements for affected facilities exemptions under 40 CFR § 60.676( d) are not reflected in the table because their occurrence is very rare in practice.

b Assume that none of the existing facilities will either add a new affected facility or will conduct an operational change such that it will trigger applicability of this rule. Affected facilities are those operations in tire manufacturing plants as described by Subpart BBB.

c Assume a technical Labor Rate of $ 55.34 per hour. This rate is from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2000, " Table 10. Private industry, by occupational and industry group." The rate is from column 1, " Total compensation." The wage rate have been increase by 110% to account for the benefit packages available to those employed by private industry. This amount was multiplied by the hours per year in Column E.

d Assume that ten percent of the existing facilities will make a physical/ operational change.

e A new plant typically would have about 5 new affected facilities. However, we are assuming that no new plants will be built.

f There are no notification requirements, since there are no new affected facilities.

g Assume there are 3 plants that conduct Method 25 once a year to determine the VOC concentration in each stack, both entering and leaving the control device.

h Exceedance reports submitted as applicable. Assume one third of sources report exceedance reports for each six month.

i Assume that all existing plants submit this annual Method 24 report. Further assume that 50 percent of the existing plants will continue to use HAP materials ( VOC) in the spray at levels that meet the green tire VOC limitations in NSPS not needing add on control devices. The remaining plants use only water based sprays.

j Assume that the burden incurred to record these items is 1 hour per occurrence per source due to the nature of the control equipment used and its intermittent use.

k Assume two occurrences of startup, shutdown and/ or malfunction per source per month which yields an average of 18 occurrences per source per respondent( 36 weeks).

l Assume that the burden incurred to record these times is 1 hour per occurence since much of the required information 3 is currently recorded by the industry.

m Assume operation of 252 days per year ( 36 weeks).


[Federal Register: August 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 50057]
[DOCID:fr24au06-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-490-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC
Gas Tariff

August 18, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 15, 2006, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Fifth Revised Volume No. 1 the following tariff sheets to be effective
November 1, 2006:

Third Revised Sheet No. 263F.
Third Revised Sheet No. 263G.
Tenth Revised Sheet No. 263H.
Ninth Revised Sheet No. 263H.1.

    Northern states that Tariff Sheet Nos. 263H and 263H.1 reflect the
Sourcers' flow obligations as a result of the Appendix B customers'
elections to source or buy out of their flow obligations pursuant to
Section 29(C)2 of Northern's tariff.
    Northern states that copies of the filing were served upon
Northern's customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-14011 Filed 8-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13055-13056]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04296]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9784-7]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to
State Operating Permit for Luminant Generation Company--Sandow 5
Generating Plant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition to object to Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) operating permit.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces that the EPA Administrator has
responded to a citizen petition asking EPA to object to an operating
permit (Permit Number O3025) issued by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Specifically, the Administrator has
denied the October 5, 2011 petition, submitted by the Environmental
Integrity Project (EIP), Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Texas Campaign
for the Environment, Environment Texas, and the SEED Coalition
(Petitioners), to object to the operating permit issued on August 18,
2011, to Luminant Generation Company, for the operation of the Sandow 5
Generating Plant located near Rockdale, Milam County, Texas. Sections
307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the Act provide that a petitioner may ask for
judicial review of those portions of the petition which EPA denies in
the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Any
petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date this
notice appears in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 307 of the
Act.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of the final Order, the petition, and
other supporting information at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.
    EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view copies of
the final Order, petition, and other supporting information. You may
view the hard copies Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m., excluding Federal holidays. If you wish to examine these
documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the
visiting day. Additionally, the final Order for Luminant Generation
Company, for the operation of the Sandow 5 Generating Plant is
available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/sandow_response2011.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dinesh Senghani at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 6
address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to
review, and object to as appropriate, a title V operating permit
proposed by State permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA
authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator, within 60 days
after the expiration of this review period, to object to a title V
operating permit if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only
on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable
specificity during the public comment period provided by the State,
unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise
these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issue
arose after this period.
    EPA received a petition from the Petitioners dated October 4, 2011,
requesting that EPA object to the issuance of the title V operating
permit to Luminant Generation Company--Sandow 5 Generating Plant
located near Rockdale, Milam County, Texas based on the following
contentions: (1) The Sandow 5 title V permit impermissibly incorporates
by reference emission limitations established in a major New Source
Review permit, (2) the Sandow 5 title V permit impermissibly
incorporates by reference the EPA-disapproved Pollution Control Project
Standard Permit, (3) the permit impermissibly incorporates permit by
rules (this claim is divided into 7 sub-claims), and (4) the permit
lacks a Maximum Achievable Control Technology determination as required
by CAA section 112(g).
    On January 15, 2013, the Administrator issued an Order denying the
petition. The Order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion to
deny the petition.

    Dated: February 12, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-04296 Filed 2-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P