[Federal Register: July 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 148)]
[Notices]
[Page 44791]
[DOCID:fr31jy08-87]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Roundtable on International
Financial Reporting Standards on Monday, August 4, 2008 beginning at 1
p.m.
    The Roundtable will take place in the Auditorium of the
Commission's headquarters at 100 F Street, NE., Washington DC. The
Roundtable will be open to the public with seating on a first-come,
first-served basis. Doors will open at 12:30 p.m. Visitors will be
subject to security checks.
    The roundtable will consist of an open discussion on International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and an update on IFRS
developments, including the experience with use of IFRS during the
recent period of market turmoil. The roundtable will be organized as
two panels, each consisting of investors, issuers, auditors and other
parties with experience in IFRS reporting.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 28, 2008.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17600 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: December 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 67938]
[DOCID:fr21de09-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Placer Gold Corp. f\k\a Arctic Oil and Gas
Corp.; Order of Suspension of Trading

December 17, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Placer Gold Corporation (f\k\a Arctic Oil and Gas Corp.) because
questions have arisen regarding the accuracy of assertions in press
releases, company Web sites and periodic reports filed with the
Commission concerning, among other things, the company's financial
condition.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, on
December 17, 2009 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on December 31, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30354 Filed 12-17-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42347-42349]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17481]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67424; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services

July 12, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 29, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 Arca Equities Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (``Fee Schedule''). The Exchange
proposes to implement the fee changes 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule, as described
below, and implement the fee changes on July 1, 2012.
    ETP Holders, including Market Makers, are currently eligible to
qualify for the Cross-Asset Tier and the corresponding credit of
$0.0030 per share for orders that provide liquidity on the Exchange. To
qualify, an ETP Holder must (1) provide liquidity of 0.50% or more of
the U.S. Consolidated Average Daily Volume (``CADV'') \4\ per month,
and (2) be affiliated with an NYSE Arca Options OTP Holder or OTP Firm
that provides an average daily volume (``ADV'') of electronic posted
Customer executions in Penny Pilot issues on NYSE Arca Options of at
least 110,000 contracts.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. CADV means United States Consolidated Average Daily
Volume for transactions reported to the Consolidated Tape and
excludes volume on days when the market closes early.
    \5\ An affiliate of an ETP Holder would be a person or firm that
directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls
or is controlled by, or is under common control with, the ETP
Holder. See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(b). As provided under NYSE
Arca Options Rule 6.72, options on certain issues have been approved
to trade with a minimum price variation of $0.01 as part of a pilot
program that is currently scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012.
See SR-NYSEArca-2012-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to decrease the CADV percentage threshold
from 0.50% to 0.45% and to decrease the options ADV threshold from
110,000 contracts to 90,000 contracts. The Exchange has determined to
make these changes in light of current and anticipated market
conditions and believes that these changes will provide a greater
incentive to attract additional equities and options liquidity.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),
in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
in particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed changes
to the Cross-Asset Tier would directly relate to the activity of an ETP
Holder and the activity of an affiliated OTP Holder or OTP Firm on the
Exchange, thereby encouraging increased trading activity on both the
NYSE Arca equity and option markets. The Exchange has determined to
adjust the CADV and contract thresholds in light of current and
anticipated market conditions and believes that these changes will
provide a greater incentive to attract additional equities and options
liquidity.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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) \6\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \7\ thereunder, because it establishes [sic] a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 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-NYSEArca-2012-70 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-NYSEArca-2012-70.
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 Section, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the NYSEArca's principal office and on
its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEArca-2012-70 and should be submitted
on or before August 8, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17481 Filed 7-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 9545]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02992]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91084; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-105]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change To Revise Rules 46 and 46A and Other Related Rules
To Permit the Appointment of Trading Officials

February 9, 2021.
    On December 15, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend to revise NYSE Rules 46 and 46A, and other related rules, to
permit the appointment of Trading Officials. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 30,
2020.\3\ The Commission has received no comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90776 (Dec. 22,
2020), 85 FR 86625 (Dec. 30, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is February 13, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day period for Commission action
on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ the Commission designates March 30, 2021, as the date by which
the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove, the proposed
rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2020-105).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02992 Filed 2-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36838-36844]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16257]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9981-39--Region 6]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the South Valley
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete Operable Units 1, 2, and 5 of the South
Valley Superfund Site (Site) located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, from
the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this
proposed action. 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). The EPA and the
State of New Mexico, through the New Mexico Environment Department,
have determined that all appropriate response actions at these
identified parcels under CERCLA have been completed, other than five-
year reviews and operation and maintenance activities. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund. This partial
deletion pertains to Operable Units 1, 2, and 5. The remaining Operable
Units 3, 4, and 6 will remain on the NPL and are not being considered
for deletion as part of this action.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: Michael A. Hebert, Remedial Project Manager, EPA
Region 6, Mail Code--6SF-RL, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733.
     Hand delivery:

[cir] Michael A. Hebert, Remedial Project Manager, EPA Region 6, Mail
Code--6SF-RL, 7th Floor Reception Area, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202-2733.
[cir] Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation (Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.) and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1983-0002. The http://www.regulations.gov website 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 email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email 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 statute. 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:

Zimmerman Library, Government Information Department, University of New
Mexico, Albuquerque NM 87131,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday-Thursday--7 a.m.-2
a.m., Friday--7 a.m.-9 p.m., Saturday--10 a.m.-6 p.m., Sunday--12 p.m.-
2 a.m.
New Mexico Environment Department, Harold Runnels Building, 1190 St.
Francis Drive, Santa Fe, NM 87505,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday-Friday--8 a.m.-
5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Hebert, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Mail Code--
6SF-RL, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 6 announces its intent to delete Operable Units 1, 2,
and 5 of the South Valley Superfund Site (Site), from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed
action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the
National 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 those 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). This partial
deletion of the South Valley Superfund Site is proposed in accordance
with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy
Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities
List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in Sec.  300.425(e)(3)
of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible
for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such
actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete this
site for 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
    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 Operable Units 1, 2, and 5 of the
South Valley Superfund Site and demonstrates how the operable units
meet the deletion criteria.

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 Operable Units 1, 2,
and 5 of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of New Mexico before developing
this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion.
    (2) EPA has provided the State of New Mexico 30 working days for
review of this notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The State of New Mexico, through the New Mexico Environment
Department, has concurred with the deletion of Operable Units 1, 2, and
5 of the South Valley Superfund Site, from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion in the Federal Register, a notice is being published
in a major local newspaper, the Albuquerque Journal, http://www.abqjournal.com. The newspaper announces the 30-day public comment
period concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site
from the NPL.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
partial deletion in the deletion docket, made these items available for
public inspection, and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this
document, EPA will evaluate and respond accordingly to the comments
before making a final decision to delete Operable Units 1, 2, and 5. If
necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any
significant public comments received. After the public comment period,
if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete Operable Units 1,
2, and 5 of the South Valley Superfund Site, the Regional Administrator
will publish a final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal
Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the
Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to
interested parties and included in the site information repositories
listed above.
    Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself
create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations.
Deletion of a portion 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 Partial Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting
Operable Units 1, 2, and 5 of the South Valley Superfund Site from the
NPL:

Site Background and History

    The EPA ID for the South Valley Superfund Site is NMD980745558. The
South Valley Superfund Site is in the southern portion of Albuquerque,
in Bernillo County, New Mexico, directly across Interstate 25 from the
Albuquerque International Airport and the University of New Mexico Golf
Course. The South Valley Superfund Site consists of an area of
approximately one square mile proximate to the intersection of South
Broadway Boulevard and Woodward Road and is divided into two
properties: the former Air Force Plant 83 site and the Univar site. The
Air Force Plant 83 site is further divided into two parcels located
north and south of Woodward Road known as North Plant 83 and South
Plant 83, respectively. Various manufacturing operations occurred at
the Air Force Plant 83 site from the 1940s until 1967, when the United
States Air Force took ownership of the property and its contractor,
General Electric Aircraft Engines (GEA), began manufacturing aircraft
engine components at the property. GEA purchased the Air Force Plant 83
in 1983 and continued operations until October 1997, when North Plant
83 was closed, and until October 2010, when South Plant 83 was closed.
Groundwater beneath the Site is in the Santa Fe Group which is
comprised of several layers within the formation. The shallow zone
aquifer (approximately 175-225 below ground surface [bgs]) beneath the
North Plant 83 area has a continuous silty clay layer underneath it and
is therefore primarily perched and does not have a uniform flow
direction. The shallow groundwater in the South Plant 83 area flows
east to west. Unlike North Plant 83, the silty clay layer beneath the
South Plant 83 area is discontinuous and therefore is in hydraulic
connection with the deeper aquifer zones. The deeper aquifer sand zones
(approximately 225-355 bgs, 255-415 bgs, and 415-515 bgs) have
discontinuous silts and clays interbedded within them which are not
laterally extensive but may limit downward movement through the
formation. Groundwater flows generally east to west in all the deeper
aquifer zones.
    Groundwater contamination was first suspected in the late 1970s in
two municipal wells--San Jose No. 6 and San Jose No. 3. The wells were
taken out of service after subsequent sampling indicated contamination.
Groundwater monitoring results in the vicinity of the wells indicated
the potential for a number of sources, including several industrial
operations located in close proximity to the contaminated wells. When
the Site was proposed to the NPL on December 30, 1982, (47 FR 58476),
it was the number one priority of the State of New Mexico. EPA
finalized the NPL listing on September 8, 1983, (48 FR 40658).
    The Operable Units at the South Valley Superfund Site are as
follows:
    Operable Unit 1 (OU1) (included in partial deletion)--OU1 consists
of the City of Albuquerque San Jose 6 (SJ-6) and San Jose 3 (SJ-3)
wells, which were contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
EPA signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 on March 22, 1985 but
did not identify a Potentially Responsible Party (PRP). The remedial
goal was to eliminate the threat to human health posed by introducing
water from the San Jose 6 and San Jose 3 wells into the City of
Albuquerque drinking water supply. The objective was achieved by EPA
replacing wells SJ-6 and SJ-3 with the Burton No. 4 well, which was
completed in April 1987.
    Operable Unit 2 (OU2) (included in partial deletion)--The remedial
goals of OU2 were to eliminate the conduit(s) for contaminant migration
from the shallow to the deeper aquifers and to restrict groundwater use
under the Site. EPA signed the OU2 ROD on September 30, 1988 and
identified GEA as a PRP. GEA implemented the remedial action by
plugging SJ-6 and SJ-3 and any shallow wells that could act as conduits
for contaminant transport from the shallow to the deeper aquifers,
restricting groundwater use, and implementing groundwater monitoring.
GEA integrated the OU2 groundwater monitoring program into Operable
Unit 6 and continues the monitoring program today.
    Operable Unit 3 (OU3)--The remedial goal of OU3 included reducing
the concentrations of site-related VOCs in groundwater to acceptable
levels (aquifer restoration) via a pump-treat-injection system. EPA
signed the ROD on June 28, 1988 and identified Univar as the
Potentially Responsible Party. Univar initiated groundwater recovery
system in April 1992 and a vapor recovery system in November 1999.
Univar shut off both systems in November 2006. Subsequent monitoring
has shown that the groundwater and vapor recovery systems reduced the
dissolved chlorinated VOC concentrations to levels below and compliant
with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements as defined in
the ROD. On June 10, 2014, the EPA acknowledged that Univar completed
all requirements of the Consent Decree dated March 27, 1990, as they
relate to the constituents of concern in groundwater identified in the
ROD and the subsequent Explanation of Significant Differences dated
September 26, 2006, except for addressing 1,4-dioxane contamination.
The EPA acknowledged that Univar is addressing 1,4-dioxane in
groundwater at OU3 pursuant to Section XVI(D) of the above Consent
Decree.
    Operable Unit 4 (OU4)--OU4 consists of the vadose zone at the
Univar site. As the PRP, Univar was required to investigate the soil
around a pit on its property to establish the source of the solvents
under their plant. The investigation found no evidence in the vadose
zone that a release occurred at this location. EPA signed the ROD on
June 28, 1988 and specified No Further Action.
    Operable Unit 5 (OU5) (included in partial deletion)--OU5 consists
of the unsaturated and saturated portion of the shallow zone aquifer at
North Plant 83 and South Plant 83. EPA signed the ROD on September 30,
1988, and identified GEA as the PRP. The remedial goals for this
operable unit were remediating shallow zone groundwater and eliminating
source materials via enhanced dewatering, soil flushing, and soil vapor
extraction (SVE) to result in aquifer restoration. GEA conducted soil
vapor surveys and collected soil borings in the South Plant 83 area and
the North Plant 83 area to identify VOC contamination. The result of
these investigations indicated that the concentrations of VOCs would
best be remediated using SVE. GEA operated SVE systems at the North
Plant 83 and South Plant 83 areas in 1992 and 1993. Prior to
remediation, the groundwater contamination encompassed approximately
twelve acres at North Plant 83 and approximately seven acres at South
Plant 83. GEA initiated shallow groundwater recovery systems at the
North Plant 83 and South Plant 83 areas in May 1994 and completely shut
down the groundwater recovery systems in July 2010. GEA completed
compliance groundwater monitoring and on September 22, 2014 requested
closure of OU5 stating that GEA had satisfactorily completed all
requirements of the Administrative Order dated July 3, 1989. All wells
and infrastructure associated with the OU5 groundwater treatment system
have been plugged and

abandoned or removed as approved by EPA.
    After the closure of South Plant 83 in October 2010, GEA performed
additional remedial activities associated with OU5 soils. Specifically,
GEA performed investigations within the North Plant 83 and South Plant
83 building footprints and excavated and disposed of hexavalent
chromium contaminated soil from the East and West Tank Line area in
South Plant 83. In addition, GEA filed a deed restriction in the
Bernalillo County records covering areas where semi-volatile organic
compounds (i.e., polyaromatic hydrocarbons) or hexavalent chromium
contamination remained above industrial soil screening levels.
    Operable Unit 6 (OU6)--OU6 consists of the deep aquifer at North
Plant 83 and South Plant 83. EPA signed the ROD on September 30, 1988
and identified GEA as the PRP. The remedial goals of OU6 are
hydraulically containing the plume to protect the City of Albuquerque's
water supply wells and reducing the concentrations of site-related VOC
compounds in groundwater to acceptable levels (aquifer restoration).
The original plume was approximately 100 acres in size but as of 2018,
only two wells have constituents above cleanup levels. The groundwater
remediation system at OU6 began operation in March 1996. Remedial
action activities have hydraulically contained the plume and shrunk it
significantly from its former volume and mass. To date, over 7.5
billion gallons of contaminated water have been recovered, treated, and
reinjected back into the deep aquifer.
    The South Valley area of Albuquerque has experienced ongoing
development and redevelopment for decades. The proposed extension of
Sunport Boulevard from east of Interstate 25 to west of Interstate 25,
if constructed, is expected to spur local economic growth and
redevelopment.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

    Operable Unit 1 (OU1)--Other than the sampling that established
that San Jose No. 6 and San Jose No. 3 municipal water supply wells had
been impacted, there was no remedial investigation performed for OU1.
Upon detection of contamination, the City of Albuquerque discontinued
use of the water supply wells. Subsequently, the EPA, the City of
Albuquerque, and other stakeholders conducted several meetings to
discuss potential sites for a replacement municipal well, which
culminated in the final design and ultimate installation of a
replacement municipal water supply well, Burton Well No. 4. In
addition, a remedial investigation was initiated which provided
information utilized to develop remedial activities for the remaining
operable units at the Site.
    Operable Unit 2 (OU2)--GEA conducted a remedial investigation for
OU2 because of the contamination identified in OU1. As part of the
remedial investigation, GEA compiled existing investigative information
and collected additional soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment
information associated with the one-square-mile boundary area of the
South Valley Superfund Site. In addition, GEA identified contamination
associated with several different sources. Based upon the remedial
investigation data, GEA determined in the feasibility study that
contaminated groundwater in the shallow zone was potentially migrating
into the intermediate zone throughout the Site through improperly
constructed groundwater wells. The contaminants of concern identified
in the remedial investigation were VOCs, with the main contaminant
being trichloroethylene (TCE).
    Operable Unit 5 (OU5)--GEA conducted a remedial investigation for
OU5 because of the contamination identified in OU1. As part of the
remedial investigation GEA, compiled existing investigative information
and collected additional soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment
information associated with the one-square-mile boundary area of the
South Valley Superfund Site. Further, GEA identified contamination
associated with several different sources. The contaminants of concern
identified in the remedial investigation were VOCs, with the main
contaminant being TCE.
    Based upon the remedial investigation data, GEA determined in the
feasibility study that OU5 soil contamination occurs in areas
associated with the two areas, North Plant 83 and South Plant 83, and
groundwater contamination occurs in the shallow aquifer below portions
of both the North Plant 83 and South Plant 83 areas. GEA also
identified groundwater contamination comprising of similar constituents
of concerns as in OU5 in several other hydrogeological units beneath
the Site, which are addressed in OU6.
    After the closure of South Plant 83 in October 2010, GEA performed
additional remedial activities associated with OU5, including soil
investigations within the North Plant 83 and South Plant 83 building
footprints. GEA identified 68 separate areas as a potential concern
with 41 of these locations being identified for investigation. In
addition, GEA sampled soil borings for VOCs, semi-volatile organic
compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, and selected metals. GEA did not
detect VOCs above industrial soil screening levels and did not detect
any polychlorinated biphenyls. GEA detected semi-volatile organic
compounds (i.e., polyaromatic hydrocarbons) and hexavalent chromium in
a few of the 41 locations investigated. In addition, GEA inspected,
investigated, and cleaned out sanitary sewer lines for both North Plant
83 and South Plant 83. While GEA detected concentrations of metal
contaminants in sediments within the sewer lines, it did not identify
impacts in the soils adjacent and beneath the sewer lines.

Selected Remedy

    Operable Unit 1 (OU1)--EPA signed the ROD for OU1 on March 22,
1985. The selected remedy was installation of a new water supply well
to replace the capacity of the contaminated well San Jose No. 6. The
remedial goal was to eliminate the threat to human health posed by
introducing water from this well into the City of Albuquerque drinking
water supply.
    Operable Unit 2 (OU2)--EPA signed the ROD for OU2 on September 30,
1988. The selected remedy consisted of cleaning out and sealing
abandoned wells that were acting as conduits for contaminant migration,
groundwater quality monitoring during and after implementation of any
remedial action, and the imposition of access restrictions regarding
well construction specifications and depth of completions through the
State Engineer's office. The remedial goals were eliminating conduit(s)
for contaminant migration from the shallow to intermediate aquifers and
preventing the use of contaminated groundwater in the site area.
    Operable Unit 5 (OU5)--EPA signed the ROD for OU5 on September 30,
1988. The selected remedy consisted of further investigation to define
the extent of soil and groundwater contamination, soil remediation
utilizing SVE on portions of North Plant 83 and South Plant 83,
groundwater remediation through extraction, treatment with air
stripping followed by carbon adsorption, and reinjection into the
aquifer for shallow (OU5) groundwater contaminated zones located under
portions of North Plant 83 and South Plant 83 along with intermediate/
deep (OU6) groundwater contaminated zones on-site and off-site. The
remedial goals for OU5 were remediating shallow zone groundwater and
eliminating source

materials via enhanced dewatering, soil flushing, and SVE. Further, as
a result of the investigations performed by GEA after closure of South
Plant 83 in October 2010, GEA conducted removal of soil proximate to
the East and West Tank Line area in South Plant 83 in 2011.

Response Actions

    Operable Unit 1 (OU1)--The United State Corps of Engineers
completed a final design for a new municipal water supply well in late
1986. The remedial action performed at OU1 was the replacement of wells
SJ-6 and SJ-3 with the Burton No. 4 well, which was completed in April
1987.
    Operable Unit 2 (OU2)--GEA completed a final design dated July 20,
1990, that contained plans to install monitoring wells, clean out and
plug abandoned wells including the SJ-6 well (OU1), and conduct a
groundwater monitoring program. GEA completed the installation of new
monitoring wells and the plugging and abandonment of wells that could
act as conduits for contaminant transport to lower groundwater zones by
the end of 1992. GEA initiated an OU2 groundwater monitoring program,
which in 1996 was combined with the OU6 groundwater monitoring program
to simplify groundwater monitoring and reporting at the Site. The New
Mexico State Engineer's office issued a restriction concerning
groundwater well construction within the boundaries of the South Valley
Superfund Site on December 19, 1988.
    Operable Unit 5 (OU5)--Because the remedial investigation
identified both soil and groundwater contamination, the response
actions for OU5 were separated by media into soil and groundwater
actions. For soils, GEA finalized the remedial design for the SVE
systems in late 1991, which EPA subsequently approved on January 24,
1992. GEA installed and operated SVE systems on both the North Plant 83
and South Plant 83 areas. The North Plant 83 SVE system operated for
approximately four months from June 1992 to June 1993. The South Plant
83 SVE system operated for approximately five months from October 1992
to March 1993. For groundwater, GEA's contractor, Canonie
Environmental, completed a final design dated July 21, 1993, that
contained construction details for the remedial systems for the shallow
zone groundwater remediation on the North Plant 83 and South Plant 83
areas. The North Plant 83 system initially was comprised of seven
extraction wells, and the South Plant 83 system was comprised of three
wells. These systems were augmented through their operational lifetime
to adapt to changes in groundwater concentrations and flow patterns.
    After the closure of South Plant 83 in October 2010, GEA performed
additional remedial activities associated with OU5. GEA conducted
removal of soil proximate to the East and West Tank Line area in South
Plant 83 in 2011. Approximately 3.5 tons of contaminated soil and
concrete were removed and transported for final disposal at an off-site
hazardous waste disposal facility. Following removal, GEA backfilled
the area with clean fill and capped the area with a five-inch-thick,
3,000 pounds/square inch layer of reinforced concrete. GEA filed a deed
restriction in the Bernalillo County records covering areas where semi-
volatile organic compounds (i.e., polyaromatic hydrocarbons) or
hexavalent chromium contamination remained present above industrial
soil screening levels. GEA removed approximately 1,750 feet of primary
4-inch to 8-inch diameter cast iron process sewer lines, 435 feet of
similar smaller branch lines, and seven manholes and disposed these
materials at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act treatment,
storage, and disposal facility. Finally, GEA cleaned and abandoned in
place the South Plant 83 sewer system piping and plugged the connection
to the City of Albuquerque sewer system.

Cleanup Levels

    Operable Unit 1 (OU1)--There were no cleanup levels established for
OU1, as the remedy was simply replacement of a municipal water supply
well to replace the capacity lost by the contaminated SJ-6 well.
    Operable Unit 2 (OU2)--There were no cleanup levels established for
OU2, as the remedy was simply the installation of additional
groundwater monitoring wells, the plugging and abandonment of wells
that could act as conduits for contaminant transport to lower
groundwater zones, the imposition of access restrictions regarding well
construction specifications and depth of completions through the State
Engineer's office, and the establishment of a groundwater monitoring
program to obtain data concerning groundwater contamination.
    Operable Unit 5 (OU5)--The investigations and remediation work for
OU5 was separated by media into soil and groundwater work. For soil,
the ROD required the utilization of SVE for soil remediation but did
not specify cleanup levels. The ROD stated, ``Soils treatment will
continue until the vapor extraction system ceases to produce volatile
contaminants and will be followed by sampling to confirm soil
remediation.'' GEA obtained post remediation soil samples after the SVE
systems ceased operations and proposed cleanup levels for soils in
April 1993. The proposed cleanup levels considered soil exposure
pathways including dermal contact, inhalation, and ingestion (i.e., by
children ages 2 to 6) as well as the potential for contaminants to
leach from soil into groundwater that would exceed drinking water
standards. GEA based the cleanup levels on the assumption of an
operating manufacturing facility with restricted access but also on the
worst-case exposure scenario that the site could be converted to
residential use. During a meeting with GEA on November 2, 1993, EPA
verbally agreed to the proposed cleanup levels. In a letter dated June
21, 1994, EPA indicated that the levels of contaminants found in the
soils were below limits that required removal. In addition, out of an
abundance of caution, as part of the 2017 Remedial Action Report for
OU5, GEA performed a comparison of the post remediation soil
concentrations to the EPA Industrial and Residential Soil Screening
Levels (November 2015) which indicated all the post soil remediation
soil concentrations were below the EPA Industrial and Residential Soil
Screening Levels. For groundwater, the ROD specified that cleanup
levels would be maximum contaminant limits from the Safe Drinking Water
Act and levels in the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission
regulations, whichever was more stringent. These levels were updated in
an Explanation of Significant Differences dated October 16, 2006, which
added a level for tetrachloroethylene promulgated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act in 1992. GEA implemented and conducted a groundwater
monitoring program throughout the operation of the shallow zone
groundwater remediation systems. After six years of monitoring
indicating that none of the off-site wells of the North Plant 83 system
well network exceeded cleanup levels, EPA approved closure of the off-
site wells and conveyance system. GEA flushed, cleaned, and abandoned
conveyance piping in place and plugged and abandoned wells in 2010. One
on-site well associated with the North Plant 83 system remained
slightly above cleanup levels. In 2010, GEA performed in-situ chemical
oxidation around this well which subsequent sampling confirmed that
contaminant concentrations fell and

remained below cleanup levels. The South Plant 83 system experienced a
similar history to the North Plant 83 system. By 1999, all wells
associated with the South Plant 83 system except for two wells were
below cleanup levels. By 2006, only one well had concentrations above
cleanup levels. Like the North Plant 83 system, GEA performed in-situ
chemical oxidation in 2010 around this well, which subsequent sampling
confirmed that contaminant concentrations fell below cleanup levels
shortly after the in-situ treatment and remained below cleanup levels
through 2012.
    After the closure of South Plant 83 in October 2010, GEA performed
additional remedial activities associated with OU5. Utilizing
investigations results, GEA completed an assessment of the risk for the
contaminants identified in the investigation. This assessment indicated
that hexavalent chromium contamination in deep soils would not pose a
risk to human health and the environment assuming that an impermeable
cover remained in place and institutional controls were implemented.
The assessment also indicated that the semi-volatile organic compounds
(i.e., polyaromatic hydrocarbons) identified in soils would not pose a
risk to human health and the environment if the existing concrete cap
was left in place. GEA removed soil with concentrations of hexavalent
chromium above 50 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) but did not remove
soil with hexavalent chromium contamination ranging from 5.6 to 50 mg/
kg at depths between 5 to 14 feet below the existing concrete slab. GEA
filed a deed restriction in the Bernalillo County records covering
areas where semi-volatile organic compounds or hexavalent chromium
contamination remained above industrial soil screening levels.

Operation and Maintenance

    Operable Unit 1 (OU1)--The operation and maintenance concerning the
Burton No. 4 replacement well is performed by the City of Albuquerque.
    Operable Unit 2 (OU2)--There is no operation and maintenance
associated with OU2. The restriction concerning groundwater well
construction within the boundaries of the South Valley Superfund Site
issued by the New Mexico State Engineer's office on December 19, 1988,
remains in effect but is now monitored under OU6. This restriction is
not needed and does not affect the protectiveness of the actions
performed at OU2.
    Operable Unit 5 (OU5)--Since the soil and groundwater remediation
systems associated with OU5 have met their associated cleanup levels
and have been dismantled, there are no operation and maintenance
activities required or ongoing for the OU5 SVE and groundwater
remediation systems. In addition, while still in effect, the New Mexico
State Engineer's restriction concerning groundwater well construction
is no longer required for the protectiveness of the OU5 remedy because
groundwater concentrations are below the maximum contaminant limits
from the Safe Drinking Water Act and levels in the New Mexico Water
Quality Control Commission regulations. After ceasing operations in
September 2010 and completing demolition of the South Plant 83
buildings in May 2011, GEA performed investigations of the South Plant
83 property which included evaluating soil impacts near any existing
sub-grade foundation features as well as the North Plant 83 and South
Plant 83 sewer systems. In addition, GEA cleaned out and abandoned in
place the sewer systems. Because of the soil investigation, GEA removed
hexavalent chromium contamination near the location of the East and
West Tank Line on the South Plant 83 property. Some contamination
remained in place and, as a result, GEA filed a declaration of
restrictive covenants on September 9, 2014 in the Bernalillo County
property records. The declaration identified five areas where semi-
volatile organic compounds or hexavalent chromium contamination exceed
industrial soil screening levels. The declaration also contained the
following: Identification of the abandoned sanitary sewer lines and
existing sewer line locations; restriction that the property use is
limited to commercial and industrial; restriction that groundwater
beneath the site cannot be used; and engineered barriers must remain in
place on portions of the property where semi-volatile organic compounds
and hexavalent chromium remain above industrial soil screening levels.
GEA performs normal property maintenance inspections of the North Plant
83 and South Plant 83 to identify fencing integrity issues and to
maintain weed control. These inspections also observe the integrity of
the concrete cap over the East and West Tank Line removal area to
ensure it is competent. GEA also ensures that the deed restriction
remains in the Bernalillo County records.

Five Year Review

    Operable Unit 1 (OU1)--A five-year review is not necessary for OU1
because no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at
the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure.
    Operable Unit 2 (OU2)--A five-year review is not necessary for OU2
because no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at
the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. While still in effect, the New Mexico State Engineer's
restriction concerning groundwater well construction is no longer
required for the protectiveness of the OU5 remedy because groundwater
concentrations are below the maximum contaminant limits from the Safe
Drinking Water Act and levels in the New Mexico Water Quality Control
Commission regulations. In 1996, the OU2 groundwater monitoring program
was combined with the OU6 groundwater monitoring program, which is and
has been the subject of ongoing five-year reviews associated with the
Site. The next five-year review for the Site is due in July 2020.
    Operable Unit 5 (OU5)--A statutory five-year review is necessary
for OU5 because hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure. OU5 has been the subject of ongoing five-year
reviews with the next review due in July 2020. No issues and/or
recommendations were identified in the 2015 five-year review for OU5.

Community Involvement

    The major community involvement activities associated with the
operable units proposed for deletion are as follows:
     Open Houses and Workshops: September 1988; November 1993;
July 1995; October 1997; September 1998; November 1999, October 2000;
November 2001; January 2013.
     Original Proposed Plan Fact Sheet and Public Meetings:
June 1988; July 1988; August 1988; February 1989.
     Public Meetings: October 2000; November 2001.
     Original ROD Fact Sheets: July 1988; November 1988; April
1989.
     Milestone Fact Sheets: May 1989; March 1990; April 1990;
June 1990; March 1991; November 1993; June 1995; April 1996; December
2011; January 2013; June 2015; July 2015; June 2018.
     Citizens on Site Mailing List: 590.
    Other notable community involvement activities are:
     Pre Five-Year Review public notices published in local
newspapers indicating Five-Year Reviews were being initiated.
     Post Five-Year Review public notices published in local
newspapers indicating Five-Year Reviews were

completed and available in the local repository or from the State or
EPA.
     Monthly site status summaries that were made available to
the public or more recently, updates to site activities made on the
site web page available on the internet.
     September 23, 2010, newspaper article in the Albuquerque
Journal concerning the closure of the General Electric plant.
     Discussion of the site at public meetings associated with
the Sunport Boulevard Extension from approximately 2010 to the present.
     Fact sheets and public notices have been provided in both
English and Spanish.

Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met

    The implemented remedies have achieved the degree of cleanup or
protection specified in the OU1, OU2, and OU5 RODs for the portions of
the Site proposed for deletion. The selected remedial action goals and
associated cleanup levels for the OU1, OU2, and OU5 portions of the
Site proposed for deletion are consistent with EPA policy and guidance.
No further Superfund response for the OU1, OU2, and OU5 portions of the
Site proposed for deletion are needed to protect human health and the
environment. The State of New Mexico, in an August 11, 2017, letter
from the New Mexico Environment Department, concurred with the proposed
partial deletion of the OU1, OU2, and OU5 portions of the Site from the
NPL.
    The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if all
appropriate response under CERCLA has been implemented and no further
response action is appropriate. 40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA, with the
concurrence of the State of New Mexico, through NMED, believes that
this criterion for the deletion of the OU1, OU2, and OU5 portions of
the Site has been met and the OU1, OU2, and OU5 portions of the Site no
longer pose a threat to public health or the environment. Consequently,
EPA is proposing to delete the OU1, OU2, and OU5 portions of the Site
from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are available in the
Docket.

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.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

    Dated: July 19, 2018.
Arturo Blanco,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018-16257 Filed 7-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


systems of this part (including consecutive systems) must monitor
monthly. Systems may not reduce monitoring.
    (c) Unfiltered subpart H systems. A subpart H system of this part
that does not practice filtration in compliance with subparts H, P, T,
and W must

collect at least one total coliform sample near the first service
connection each day the turbidity level of the source water, measured
as specified in Sec.  141.74(b)(2), exceeds 1 NTU. When one or more
turbidity measurements in any day exceed 1 NTU, the system must collect
this coliform sample within 24 hours of the first exceedance, unless
the State determines that the system, for logistical reasons outside
the system's control, cannot have the sample analyzed within 30 hours
of collection and identifies an alternative sample collection schedule.
Sample results from this coliform monitoring must be included in
determining whether the coliform treatment technique trigger in Sec.
141.859 has been exceeded.

Sec.  141.857  Routine monitoring requirements for public water systems
serving more than 1,000 people.

    (a) General. (1) The provisions of this section apply to public
water systems serving more than 1,000 persons.
    (2) Following any total coliform-positive sample taken under the
provisions of this section, systems must comply with the repeat
monitoring requirements and E. coli analytical requirements in Sec.
141.858.
    (3) Once all monitoring required by this section and Sec.  141.858
for a calendar month has been completed, systems must determine whether
any coliform treatment technique triggers specified in Sec.  141.859
have been exceeded. If any trigger has been exceeded, systems must
complete assessments as required by Sec.  141.859.
    (4) Seasonal systems. (i) Beginning April 1, 2016, all seasonal
systems must demonstrate completion of a State-approved start-up
procedure, which may include a requirement for start-up sampling prior
to serving water to the public.
    (ii) The State may exempt any seasonal system from some or all of
the requirements for seasonal systems if the entire distribution system
remains pressurized during the entire period that the system is not
operating.
    (b) Monitoring frequency for total coliforms. The monitoring
frequency for total coliforms is based on the population served by the
system, as follows:

  Total Coliform Monitoring Frequency for Public Water Systems Serving
                         More Than 1,000 People
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Minimum number of
                  Population served                    samples per month
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,001 to 2,500.......................................                  2
2,501 to 3,300.......................................                  3
3,301 to 4,100.......................................                  4
4,101 to 4,900.......................................                  5
4,901 to 5,800.......................................                  6
5,801 to 6,700.......................................                  7
6,701 to 7,600.......................................                  8
7,601 to 8,500.......................................                  9
8,501 to 12,900......................................                 10
12,901 to 17,200.....................................                 15
17,201 to 21,500.....................................                 20
21,501 to 25,000.....................................                 25
25,001 to 33,000.....................................                 30
33,001 to 41,000.....................................                 40
41,001 to 50,000.....................................                 50
50,001 to 59,000.....................................                 60
59,001 to 70,000.....................................                 70
70,001 to 83,000.....................................                 80
83,001 to 96,000.....................................                 90
96,001 to 130,000....................................                100
130,001 to 220,000...................................                120
220,001 to 320,000...................................                150
320,001 to 450,000...................................                180
450,001 to 600,000...................................                210
600,001 to 780,000...................................                240
780,001 to 970,000...................................                270
970,001 to 1,230,000.................................                300
1,230,001 to 1,520,000...............................                330
1,520,001 to 1,850,000...............................                360
1,850,001 to 2,270,000...............................                390
2,270,001 to 3,020,000...............................                420
3,020,001 to 3,960,000...............................                450
3,960,001 or more....................................                480
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Unfiltered subpart H systems. A subpart H system of this part
that does not practice filtration in compliance with subparts H, P, T,
and W must collect at least one total coliform sample near the first
service connection each day the turbidity level of the source water,
measured as specified in Sec.  141.74(b)(2), exceeds 1 NTU. When one or
more turbidity measurements in any day exceed 1 NTU, the system must
collect this coliform sample within 24 hours of the first exceedance,
unless the State determines that the system, for logistical reasons
outside the system's control, cannot have the sample analyzed within 30
hours of collection and identifies an alternative sample collection
schedule. Sample results from this coliform monitoring must be included
in determining whether the coliform treatment technique trigger in
Sec.  141.859 has been exceeded.
    (d) Reduced monitoring. Systems may not reduce monitoring, except
for non-community water systems using only ground water (and not ground
water under the direct influence of surface water) serving 1,000 or
fewer people in some months and more than 1,000 persons in other
months. In months when more than 1,000 persons are served, the systems
must monitor at the frequency specified in paragraph (a) of this
section. In months when 1,000 or fewer people are served, the State may
reduce the monitoring frequency, in writing, to a frequency allowed
under Sec.  141.854 for a similarly situated system that always serves
1,000 or fewer people, taking into account the provisions in Sec.
141.854(e) through (g).

Sec.  141.858  Repeat monitoring and E. coli requirements.

    (a) Repeat monitoring. (1) If a sample taken under Sec. Sec.
141.854 though 141.857 is total coliform-positive, the system must
collect a set of repeat samples within 24 hours of being notified of
the positive result. The system must collect no fewer than three repeat
samples for each total coliform-positive sample found. The State may
extend the 24-hour limit on a case-by-case basis if the system has a
logistical problem in collecting the repeat samples within 24 hours
that is beyond its control. Alternatively, the State may implement
criteria for the system to use in lieu of case-by-case extensions. In
the case of an extension, the State must specify how much time the
system has to collect the repeat samples. The State cannot waive the
requirement for a system to collect repeat samples in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(3) of this section.
    (2) The system must collect all repeat samples on the same day,
except that the State may allow a system with a single service
connection to collect the required set of repeat samples over a three-
day period or to collect a larger volume repeat sample(s) in one or
more sample containers of any size, as long as the total volume
collected is at least 300 ml.
    (3) The system must collect an additional set of repeat samples in
the manner specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this
section if one or more repeat samples in the current set of repeat
samples is total coliform-positive. The system must collect the
additional set of repeat samples within 24 hours of being notified of
the positive result, unless the State extends the limit as provided in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The system must continue to collect
additional sets of repeat samples until either total coliforms are not
detected in one complete set of repeat samples or the system determines
that a coliform treatment technique trigger specified in Sec.
141.859(a) has been exceeded as a result of a repeat sample being total
coliform-positive and notifies the State. If a trigger identified

in Sec.  141.859 is exceeded as a result of a routine sample being
total coliform-positive, systems are required to conduct only one round
of repeat monitoring for each total coliform-positive routine sample.
    (4) After a system collects a routine sample and before it learns
the results of the analysis of that sample, if it collects another
routine sample(s) from within five adjacent service connections of the
initial sample, and the initial sample, after analysis, is found to
contain total coliforms, then the system may count the subsequent
sample(s) as a repeat sample instead of as a routine sample.
    (5) Results of all routine and repeat samples taken under
Sec. Sec.  141.854 through 141.858 not invalidated by the State must be
used to determine whether a coliform treatment technique trigger
specified in Sec.  141.859 has been exceeded.
    (b) Escherichia coli (E. coli) testing. (1) If any routine or
repeat sample is total coliform-positive, the system must analyze that
total coliform-positive culture medium to determine if E. coli are
present. If E. coli are present, the system must notify the State by
the end of the day when the system is notified of the test result,
unless the system is notified of the result after the State office is
closed and the State does not have either an after-hours phone line or
an alternative notification procedure, in which case the system must
notify the State before the end of the next business day.
    (2) The State has the discretion to allow a system, on a case-by-
case basis, to forgo E. coli testing on a total coliform-positive
sample if that system assumes that the total coliform-positive sample
is E. coli-positive. Accordingly, the system must notify the State as
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and the provisions of
Sec.  141.63(c) apply.

Sec.  141.859  Coliform treatment technique triggers and assessment
requirements for protection against potential fecal contamination.

    (a) Treatment technique triggers. Systems must conduct assessments
in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section after exceeding
treatment technique triggers in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this
section.
    (1) Level 1 treatment technique triggers.
    (i) For systems taking 40 or more samples per month, the system
exceeds 5.0% total coliform-positive samples for the month.
    (ii) For systems taking fewer than 40 samples per month, the system
has two or more total coliform-positive samples in the same month.
    (iii) The system fails to take every required repeat sample after
any single total coliform-positive sample.
    (2) Level 2 treatment technique triggers.
    (i) An E. coli MCL violation, as specified in Sec.  141.860(a).
    (ii) A second Level 1 trigger as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section, within a rolling 12-month period, unless the State has
determined a likely reason that the samples that caused the first Level
1 treatment technique trigger were total coliform-positive and has
established that the system has corrected the problem.
    (iii) For systems with approved annual monitoring, a Level 1
trigger in two consecutive years.
    (b) Requirements for assessments. (1) Systems must ensure that
Level 1 and 2 assessments are conducted in order to identify the
possible presence of sanitary defects and defects in distribution
system coliform monitoring practices. Level 2 assessments must be
conducted by parties approved by the State.
    (2) When conducting assessments, systems must ensure that the
assessor evaluates minimum elements that include review and
identification of inadequacies in sample sites; sampling protocol;
sample processing; atypical events that could affect distributed water
quality or indicate that distributed water quality was impaired;
changes in distribution system maintenance and operation that could
affect distributed water quality (including water storage); source and
treatment considerations that bear on distributed water quality, where
appropriate (e.g., small ground water systems); and existing water
quality monitoring data. The system must conduct the assessment
consistent with any State directives that tailor specific assessment
elements with respect to the size and type of the system and the size,
type, and characteristics of the distribution system.
    (3) Level 1 Assessments. A system must conduct a Level 1 assessment
consistent with State requirements if the system exceeds one of the
treatment technique triggers in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (i) The system must complete a Level 1 assessment as soon as
practical after any trigger in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. In the
completed assessment form, the system must describe sanitary defects
detected, corrective actions completed, and a proposed timetable for
any corrective actions not already completed. The assessment form may
also note that no sanitary defects were identified. The system must
submit the completed Level 1 assessment form to the State within 30
days after the system learns that it has exceeded a trigger.
    (ii) If the State reviews the completed Level 1 assessment and
determines that the assessment is not sufficient (including any
proposed timetable for any corrective actions not already completed),
the State must consult with the system. If the State requires revisions
after consultation, the system must submit a revised assessment form to
the State on an agreed-upon schedule not to exceed 30 days from the
date of the consultation.
    (iii) Upon completion and submission of the assessment form by the
system, the State must determine if the system has identified a likely
cause for the Level 1 trigger and, if so, establish that the system has
corrected the problem, or has included a schedule acceptable to the
State for correcting the problem.
    (4) Level 2 Assessments. A system must ensure that a Level 2
assessment consistent with State requirements is conducted if the
system exceeds one of the treatment technique triggers in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section. The system must comply with any expedited
actions or additional actions required by the State in the case of an
E. coli MCL violation.
    (i) The system must ensure that a Level 2 assessment is completed
by the State or by a party approved by the State as soon as practical
after any trigger in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The system must
submit a completed Level 2 assessment form to the State within 30 days
after the system learns that it has exceeded a trigger. The assessment
form must describe sanitary defects detected, corrective actions
completed, and a proposed timetable for any corrective actions not
already completed. The assessment form may also note that no sanitary
defects were identified.
    (ii) The system may conduct Level 2 assessments if the system has
staff or management with the certification or qualifications specified
by the State unless otherwise directed by the State.
    (iii) If the State reviews the completed Level 2 assessment and
determines that the assessment is not sufficient (including any
proposed timetable for any corrective actions not already completed),
the State must consult with the system. If the State requires revisions
after consultation, the system must submit a revised assessment form to
the State on an agreed-upon schedule not to exceed 30 days.
    (iv) Upon completion and submission of the assessment form by the
system, the State must determine if the system

has identified a likely cause for the Level 2 trigger and determine
whether the system has corrected the problem, or has included a
schedule acceptable to the State for correcting the problem.
    (c) Corrective Action. Systems must correct sanitary defects found
through either Level 1 or 2 assessments conducted under paragraph (b)
of this section. For corrections not completed by the time of
submission of the assessment form, the system must complete the
corrective action(s) in compliance with a timetable approved by the
State in consultation with the system. The system must notify the State
when each scheduled corrective action is completed.
    (d) Consultation. At any time during the assessment or corrective
action phase, either the water system or the State may request a
consultation with the other party to determine the appropriate actions
to be taken. The system may consult with the State on all relevant
information that may impact on its ability to comply with a requirement
of this subpart, including the method of accomplishment, an appropriate
timeframe, and other relevant information.

Sec.  141.860  Violations.

    (a) E. coli MCL Violation. A system is in violation of the MCL for
E. coli when any of the conditions identified in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(4) of this section occur.
    (1) The system has an E. coli-positive repeat sample following a
total coliform-positive routine sample.
    (2) The system has a total coliform-positive repeat sample
following an E. coli-positive routine sample.
    (3) The system fails to take all required repeat samples following
an E. coli-positive routine sample.
    (4) The system fails to test for E. coli when any repeat sample
tests positive for total coliform.
    (b) Treatment technique violation. (1) A treatment technique
violation occurs when a system exceeds a treatment technique trigger
specified in Sec.  141.859(a) and then fails to conduct the required
assessment or corrective actions within the timeframe specified in
Sec.  141.859(b) and (c).
    (2) A treatment technique violation occurs when a seasonal system
fails to complete a State-approved start-up procedure prior to serving
water to the public.
    (c) Monitoring violations. (1) Failure to take every required
routine or additional routine sample in a compliance period is a
monitoring violation.
    (2) Failure to analyze for E. coli following a total coliform-
positive routine sample is a monitoring violation.
    (d) Reporting violations. (1) Failure to submit a monitoring report
or completed assessment form after a system properly conducts
monitoring or assessment in a timely manner is a reporting violation.
    (2) Failure to notify the State following an E. coli-positive
sample as required by Sec.  141.858(b)(1) in a timely manner is a
reporting violation.
    (3) Failure to submit certification of completion of State-approved
start-up procedure by a seasonal system is a reporting violation.

Sec.  141.861  Reporting and recordkeeping.

    (a) Reporting. (1) E. coli.
    (i) A system must notify the State by the end of the day when the
system learns of an E. coli MCL violation, unless the system learns of
the violation after the State office is closed and the State does not
have either an after-hours phone line or an alternative notification
procedure, in which case the system must notify the State before the
end of the next business day, and notify the public in accordance with
subpart Q of this part.
    (ii) A system must notify the State by the end of the day when the
system is notified of an E. coli-positive routine sample, unless the
system is notified of the result after the State office is closed and
the State does not have either an after-hours phone line or an
alternative notification procedure, in which case the system must
notify the State before the end of the next business day.
    (2) A system that has violated the treatment technique for
coliforms in Sec.  141.859 must report the violation to the State no
later than the end of the next business day after it learns of the
violation, and notify the public in accordance with subpart Q of this
part.
    (3) A system required to conduct an assessment under the provisions
of Sec.  141.859 of this part must submit the assessment report within
30 days. The system must notify the State in accordance with Sec.
141.859(c) when each scheduled corrective action is completed for
corrections not completed by the time of submission of the assessment
form.
    (4) A system that has failed to comply with a coliform monitoring
requirement must report the monitoring violation to the State within 10
days after the system discovers the violation, and notify the public in
accordance with subpart Q of this part.
    (5) A seasonal system must certify, prior to serving water to the
public, that it has complied with the State-approved start-up
procedure.
    (b) Recordkeeping. (1) The system must maintain any assessment
form, regardless of who conducts the assessment, and documentation of
corrective actions completed as a result of those assessments, or other
available summary documentation of the sanitary defects and corrective
actions taken under Sec.  141.858 for State review. This record must be
maintained by the system for a period not less than five years after
completion of the assessment or corrective action.
    (2) The system must maintain a record of any repeat sample taken
that meets State criteria for an extension of the 24-hour period for
collecting repeat samples as provided for under Sec.  141.858(a)(1) of
this part.

PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
IMPLEMENTATION

0
21. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-
5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

0
22. Section 142.14 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and
adding a new paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows:

Sec.  142.14  Records kept by States.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) The analytical results, set forth in a form that makes
possible comparison with the limits specified in Sec. Sec.  141.63,
141.71, and 141.72 of this chapter and with the limits specified in
subpart Y of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (10) Records of each of the following decisions made pursuant to
the provisions of subpart Y of part 141 must be made in writing and
retained by the State.
    (i) Records of the following decisions or activities must be
retained for five years.
    (A) Sections 141.858(a), 141.853(c)(2), 141.856(c), and 141.857(c)
of this chapter--Any case-by-case decision to waive the 24-hour time
limit for collecting repeat samples after a total coliform-positive
routine sample, or to extend the 24-hour limit for collection of
samples following invalidation, or for an unfiltered subpart H system
of this part to collect a total coliform sample following a turbidity
measurement exceeding 1 NTU.
    (B) Sections 141.854(j) and 141.855(f) of this chapter--Any
decision to allow a system to waive the requirement for

three routine samples the month following a total coliform-positive
sample. The record of the waiver decision must contain all the items
listed in those sections.
    (C) Section 141.853(c) of this chapter--Any decision to invalidate
a total coliform-positive sample. If the decision to invalidate a total
coliform-positive sample as provided in Sec.  141.853(c)(1) of this
chapter is made, the record of the decision must contain all the items
listed in that section.
    (D) Section 141.859 of this chapter--Completed and approved subpart
Y assessments, including reports from the system that corrective action
has been completed as required by Sec.  141.861(a)(2) of this chapter.
    (ii) Records of each of the following decisions must be retained in
such a manner so that each system's current status may be determined:
    (A) Section 141.854(e) of this chapter--Any decision to reduce the
total coliform monitoring frequency for a non-community water system
using only ground water and serving 1,000 or fewer people to less than
once per quarter, as provided in Sec.  141.854(e) of this chapter,
including what the reduced monitoring frequency is. A copy of the
reduced monitoring frequency must be provided to the system.
    (B) Section 141.855(d) of this chapter--Any decision to reduce the
total coliform monitoring frequency for a community water system
serving 1,000 or fewer people to less than once per month, as provided
in Sec.  141.855(d) of this chapter, including what the reduced
monitoring frequency is. A copy of the reduced monitoring frequency
must be provided to the system.
    (C) Section 141.857(d) of this chapter--Any decision to reduce the
total coliform monitoring frequency for a non-community water system
using only ground water and serving more than 1,000 persons during any
month the system serves 1,000 or fewer people, as provided in Sec.
141.857(d) of this chapter. A copy of the reduced monitoring frequency
must be provided to the system.
    (D) Section 141.858(b)(2) of this chapter--Any decision to allow a
system to forgo E. coli testing of a total coliform-positive sample if
that system assumes that the total coliform-positive sample is E. coli-
positive.
* * * * *

0
23. Section 142.15 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec.  142.15  Reports by States.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Total coliforms under subpart Y. A list of systems that the
State is allowing to monitor less frequently than once per month for
community water systems or less frequently than once per quarter for
non-community water systems as provided in Sec. Sec.  141.855 and
141.854 of this chapter, including the applicable date of the reduced
monitoring requirement for each system.
* * * * *

0
24. Section 142.16 is amended by adding a new paragraph (q) to read as
follows:

Sec.  142.16  Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *
    (q) Requirements for States to adopt 40 CFR part 141 subpart Y--
Revised Total Coliform Rule. In addition to the general primacy
requirements elsewhere in this part, including the requirements that
State regulations be at least as stringent as federal requirements, an
application for approval of a State program revision that adopts 40 CFR
part 141, subpart Y, must contain the information specified in this
paragraph (q).
    (1) In their application to EPA for approval to implement the
federal requirements, the primacy application must indicate what
baseline and reduced monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 141, subpart
Y the State will adopt and must describe how they will implement 40 CFR
part 141, subpart Y in these areas so that EPA can be assured that
implementation plans meet the minimum requirements of the rule.
    (2) The State's application for primacy for subpart Y must include
a written description for each provision included in paragraphs
(q)(2)(i) through (viii) of this section.
    (i) Sample Siting Plans--The frequency and process used to review
and revise sample siting plans in accordance with 40 CFR part 141,
subpart Y to determine adequacy.
    (ii) Reduced Monitoring Criteria--An indication of whether the
State will adopt the reduced monitoring provisions of 40 CFR part 141,
subpart Y. If the State adopts the reduced monitoring provisions, it
must describe the specific types or categories of water systems that
will be covered by reduced monitoring and whether the State will use
all or a reduced set of the optional criteria. For each of the reduced
monitoring criteria, both mandatory and optional, the State must
describe how the criteria will be evaluated to determine when systems
qualify.
    (iii) Assessments and Corrective Actions--The process for
implementing the new assessment and corrective action phase of the
rule, including the elements in paragraphs (q)(2)(iii)(A) through (D)
of this section.
    (A) Elements of Level 1 and Level 2 assessments. This must include
an explanation of how the State will ensure that Level 2 assessments
provide a more detailed examination of the system (including the
system's monitoring and operational practices) than do Level 1
assessments through the use of more comprehensive investigation and
review of available information, additional internal and external
resources, and other relevant practices.
    (B) Examples of sanitary defects.
    (C) Examples of assessment forms or formats.
    (D) Methods that systems may use to consult with the State on
appropriate corrective actions.
    (iv) Invalidation of routine and repeat samples collected under 40
CFR part 141, subpart Y--The criteria and process for invalidating
total coliform and E. coli-positive samples under 40 CFR part 141,
subpart Y. This description must include criteria to determine if a
sample was improperly processed by the laboratory, reflects a domestic
or other non-distribution system plumbing problem or reflects
circumstances or conditions that do not reflect water quality in the
distribution system.
    (v) Approval of individuals allowed to conduct Level 2 assessments
under 40 CFR part 141, subpart Y--The criteria and process for approval
of individuals allowed to conduct Level 2 assessments under 40 CFR part
141, subpart Y.
    (vi) Special monitoring evaluation--The procedure for performing
special monitoring evaluations during sanitary surveys for ground water
systems serving 1,000 or fewer people to determine whether systems are
on an appropriate monitoring schedule.
    (vii) Seasonal systems--How the State will identify seasonal
systems, how the State will determine when systems on less than monthly
monitoring must monitor, and what start-up provisions seasonal system
must meet under 40 CFR part 141, subpart Y.
    (viii) Additional criteria for reduced monitoring--How the State
will require systems on reduced monitoring to demonstrate:
    (A) Continuous disinfection entering the distribution system and a
residual in the distribution system.
    (B) Cross connection control.
    (C) Other enhancements to water system barriers.

    (ix) Criteria for extending the 24-hour period for collecting
repeat samples.--Under Sec. Sec.  141.858(a) and 141.853(c)(2) of this
chapter, criteria for systems to use in lieu of case-by-case decisions
to waive the 24-hour time limit for collecting repeat samples after a
total coliform-positive routine sample, or to extend the 24-hour limit
for collection of samples following invalidation. If the State elects
to use only case-by-case waivers, the State does not need to develop
and submit criteria.

0
25. Section 142.63 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  142.63  Variances and exemptions from the maximum contaminant
level for total coliforms.

* * * * *
    (b) EPA has stayed this section as it relates to the total coliform
MCL of Sec.  141.63(a) of this chapter for systems that demonstrate to
the State that the violation of the total coliform MCL is due to a
persistent growth of total coliforms in the distribution system rather
than fecal or pathogenic contamination, a treatment lapse or
deficiency, or a problem in the operation or maintenance of the
distribution system. This stay is applicable until March 31, 2016, at
which time the total coliform MCL is no longer applicable.

[FR Doc. 2012-31205 Filed 2-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P