[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47501-47502]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19099]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72791; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee
Schedule Relating to Lead Market Maker Rights Fees

August 7, 2014.
    On May 23, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ to
amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule relating to lead market maker
rights fees. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on June 10, 2014.\3\ On July 18, 2014, the Commission
suspended and instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received no
comment letters regarding the proposal. On August 5, 2014, NYSE Arca
withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2014-63).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72312 (June 4,
2014), 79 FR 33247 (June 10, 2014).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72642 (July 18,
2014), 79 FR 43106 (July 24, 2014).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19099 Filed 8-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 42707]
[DOCID:fr24au09-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17Ad-15, OMB Control No. 3235-0409, SEC File No. 270-360.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing collection of
information provided for in the following rule: Rule 17a-10 (17 CFR
240.17Ad-15) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and
approval.
    Rule 17Ad-15 requires approximately 587 transfer agents to
establish written standards for accepting and rejecting guarantees of
securities transfers from eligible guarantor institutions. Transfer
agents are also required to establish procedures to ensure that those
standards are used by the transfer agent to determine whether to accept
or reject guarantees from eligible guarantor institutions. Transfer
agents must maintain, for a period of three years following the date of
a rejection of transfer, a record of all transfers rejected, along with
the reason for the rejection, identification of the guarantor, and
whether the guarantor failed to meet the transfer agent's guarantee
standard. These recordkeeping requirements assist the Commission and
other regulatory agencies with monitoring transfer agents and ensuring
compliance with the rule.
    There are approximately 587 registered transfer agents. The staff
estimates that every transfer agent will spend about 40 hours annually
to comply with Rule 17Ad-15. The total annual burden for all transfer
agents is 23,480 hours (587 times 40). The average cost per hour is
approximately $50. Therefore, the total cost of compliance for all
transfer agents is $1,174,000 (23,480 times $50).
    Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to: shagufta_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to PRA_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within 30 days of this
notice.

    Dated: August 17, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-20188 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7467-7470]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02187]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68743; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Minimum Volume Orders

January 28, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 16, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') 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
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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to codify the ``Minimum
Volume Order.'' The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.
(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules

* * * * *

Rule 6.44. Bids and Offers in Relation to Units of Trading

* * * * *
     * * * Interpretations and Policies:
* * * * *
    .05 A minimum volume order bid or offer shall be deemed to have
been made for the full size of the order or any lesser number of option
contracts that is at least equal to the minimum volume specified.
Minimum volume orders and bids and offers made on a minimum volume
basis shall be deemed to be all-or-none for purposes of Interpretations
and Polices .01 and .03 above. To the extent available pursuant to Rule
6.53, minimum volume orders may only be made available by the Exchange
for open outcry trading.
* * * * *

Rule 6.53. Certain Types of Orders Defined

    One or more of the following order types may be made available on a
class-by-class basis. Certain order types may not be made available for
all Exchange systems. The classes and/or systems for which the order
types shall be available will be as provided in the Rules, as the
context may indicate, or as otherwise specified via Regulatory
Circular.
    (a)-(v) No changes.
    (w) Minimum Volume Order. A minimum volume order is an order
represented in open outcry for which an execution must at least equal
the minimum volume specified. To the extent there is any remaining
balance of a minimum volume order after the minimum volume is executed,
the remainder will no longer have a minimum fill contingency and will
be represented, in open outcry or electronically, unless cancelled by
the customer. A minimum volume order that has a minimum volume size
equal to the full size of the original order will be considered an all-
or-none order as described in Rule 6.53(i).
* * * * *

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission.

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 Exchange is proposing to add new paragraph (w) to Exchange Rule
6.53, Certain Types of Orders Defined, to codify an open outcry order
type, the ``Minimum Volume Order.'' Because of the complexity of
programming to make this order available electronically, this order
type is currently only supported for routing to, and utilized on, the
Exchange's trading floor for open outcry trading,\3\ and, thus, the
Exchange is proposing to harmonize its Rules with the current
functionality and practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Please note the Exchange may decide to introduce this order
type electronically but such action would be subject to a separate
rule change filing. The Exchange notes that it currently supports
various order types that by their nature or terms may only be
available for open outcry trading (e.g., Not Held Orders) or may
only be available for electronic trading (e.g., Reserve Orders).
See, e.g., Exchange Rule 6.53(g) and (t).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed definition of a Minimum Volume Order is similar to an
existing definition in the Exchange's Screen-Based Trading rules.\4\ In
the proposed language, a Minimum Volume Order is an order represented
in open outcry for which an execution must at least equal the minimum
volume specified. To the extent there is a remaining balance of the
original order after the minimum volume amount has been executed, the
remainder of the order will no longer have any minimum volume
contingency and will be represented in open outcry or electronically
unless cancelled by the customer. The proposed language also notes that
a Minimum Volume Order that has a minimum volume size equivalent to the
full size of the original order would be considered an All-or-None
Order as described in Rule 6.53(i).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Rule 43.2(a)(9)(E), which defines a ``Minimum
Volume Order'' as ``* * * an order where the fill should be at least
equal to the minimum volume specified, which is an amount less than
the total volume of the order.'' The Exchange does not currently
trade options pursuant to its Screen-Based Trading Rules (Chapters
XL-XLIX).
    \5\ Under Rule 6.53(i), an All-or-None Order is currently
defined as ``* * * a market or limit order which is to be executed
in its entirety or not at all.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, assume a Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') represents an
order to buy 50 contracts at $10.00 that is a Minimum Volume Order with
a minimum fill size of 30. This order can only execute if at least 30
contracts of the order would trade against other trading interest. In
this scenario, if a Floor Broker represents the Minimum Volume Order to
buy in open outcry and another order or quote for 30 contracts were
offered to sell against it, as the minimum value was met, 30 contracts
of the Minimum Volume Order to buy would execute against the sell
order/quote and the remaining 20 contracts of the Minimum Volume Order
to buy would be represented on the Exchange's trading floor or
electronically unless cancelled by the customer. In the same example,
if orders and/or quotes for only 10 contracts were offered to sell
against the Minimum Volume Order, there would be no trade because the
minimum size of 30 contracts would not be satisfied.
    In the case where the minimum volume size specified is equivalent
to the total volume of the order, then the order will be considered the
same as an All-or-None Order as specified in Exchange Rule 6.53(i). In
the above example, if the order entered to buy was a Minimum Value
[sic] Order for 50 contracts with a minimum quantity of 50 contracts
then the order would be considered an All-or-None Order as described in
Rule 6.53(i), and, as such, the entered order would only execute if the
50 contracts could be executed in its entirety.
    The Exchange is also proposing to amend Exchange Rule 6.44, Bids
and Offers in Relation to Units of Trading, to address Minimum Volume
Orders. Rule 6.44, in relevant part, provides that subject to certain
provisions in the Exchange rules, bids and offers made on the floor are
deemed to be for one option contract unless a specific number is
expressed in the bid or offer. A bid or offer for more than one option
contract which is not made on an All-or-None [sic] are deemed to be for
that amount or any lesser number of option contracts. An All-or-None
bid or offer is deemed to be made only for the amount stated. Proposed
new Interpretation and Policy .05 to Rule 6.44 will provide that, to
the extent that the Exchange determines to make the Minimum Volume
Order type available,\6\ a Minimum Volume Order bid or offer would be
deemed to have been made for the full size of the order or any lesser
number of option contracts that is at least equal to the minimum volume
specified.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The introductory paragraph to Rule 6.53 currently provides
that one or more of the identified order types may be made available
on a class-by-class basis, and certain order types may not be made
available for all Exchange Systems. The introductory paragraph to
Rule 6.53 also provides that the classes and/or systems for which
the order types shall be available will be as provided in the Rules,
as the context may indicate, or as otherwise specified via
Regulatory Circular.
    \7\ By comparison, for example, as noted above an all-or-none
bid or offer is deemed to be made only for the amount stated. See
Rule 6.44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, a Minimum Volume Order would be deemed to be an All-
or-None Order for purposes of certain other provisions of Rule 6.44.
The particular provisions are Interpretations and Policies .01 and .03
of Rule 6.44.\8\ Interpretation and Policy .01 of Rule 6.44 provides
the following: (i) A bid or offer may be made and transacted on an All-
or-None basis if the All-or-None bid or offer represents the only bid
or offer available at the best price in the market at the time the All-
or-None bid or offer is executed; \9\ (ii) an All-or-None order may not
be crossed with another All-or-None order unless all bids or offers at
the same price at which the cross is to be effected have been filled;
and (iii) if two or more All-or-None bids or offers represent the only
bids or offers at the best price in the market, priority shall be
afforded to such All-or-None bids or offers in the sequence in which
they are made. Interpretation and Policy .03 provides that the Exchange
may restrict the entry of All-or-None Orders in one or more classes or
series of options whenever, in its judgment, the interests of
maintaining a fair and orderly market are best served. Proposed new
Interpretation and Policy .05 to Rule 6.44 will reflect the
applicability of

these two provisions to Minimum Volume Orders.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that Interpretation and Policy .02
relates to All-or-None orders in the Exchange's electronic book, and
because Minimum Volume Orders are only available in open outcry
trading, this provision is not applicable to Minimum Volume Orders.
    \9\ In other words, a Minimum Volume Order would, like an All-
or-None Order, yield priority to all other interest at the same
price on the trading floor.
    \10\ Specifically, proposed new Interpretation and Policy .05
would also provide that Minimum Volume Orders and bids and offers
made on a Minimum Volume basis shall be deemed to be All-or-None for
purposes of Interpretations and Policies .01 and .03 of Rule 6.44.
This proposed Interpretation and Policy .05 is similar to existing
Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 6.44, which provides that
Fill-or-Kill orders and bids or offers made on a Fill-or-Kill basis
shall be deemed to be All-or-None for purposes of Rule 6.44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\11\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \12\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitation
[sic] transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \13\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the addition of Rules 6.44.05
and 6.53(w) promotes just and equitable principles of trading by
aligning the text of the rules with the actual functionality, which is
currently available in open outcry. By updating the text of the
Exchange's rules to describe the orders already supported by the
Exchange, the proposed rule change is attempting to harmonize the
functionality with the text of the Exchange Rules and is thereby
promoting clarity and eliminating confusion. In addition, the proposed
language alerts TPHs of the functionality of the order, and, thus,
allows investors to use the order type, to the extent made available by
the Exchange, with full knowledge of how the order type will function.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed Minimum Volume Order type
definition is similar to an existing order type in the Exchange's
Screen-Based Trading Rules.\14\ Additionally, the Exchange notes that
the proposed order type is similar to order types available on other
markets, including on the NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') \15\ and on
the International Securities Exchange (``ISE'').\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Exchange Rule 43.2(a)(9)(E).
    \15\ See PHLX Rule 3301(f)(5), which provides that ``Minimum
Quantity Orders'' are orders that require ``a specified minimum
quantity of shares be obtained, or the order is cancelled. Minimum
Quantity Orders may only be entered with a time-in-force designation
of System Hours Immediate or Cancel.''
    \16\ See ISE Rule 715(l) which defines a ``Minimum Quantity
Order'' as one that ``is available for partial execution, but each
partial execution must be for a specified number of contracts or
greater.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE 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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change will not impose any burden because
the Exchange is merely harmonizing its Rules with current functionality
and practice. Further, CBOE believes that the proposed rule change will
relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition because this
order type is currently offered by other Exchanges. Thus, clarifying
the Exchange rules would give further authority to compete with other
exchanges currently offering the order type.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \18\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2013-009 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-CBOE-2013-009. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal

offices 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-CBOE-2013-009, and should be submitted on or before February 22,
2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02187 Filed 1-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 61675]
[DOCID:fr25no09-63]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0319, FRL-8984-8]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Part B Permit Application, Permit
Modifications, and Special Permits (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1573.12,
OMB Control Number 2050-0009

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 28,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2009-0319, to (1) EPA, either online using http://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail
to: RCRA Docket (28221T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB, by mail
to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toshia King, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, mailcode 5303P, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 27, 2009 (74 FR 25236) EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0319, which is available for online viewing at http://
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/
DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the RCRA
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Part B Permit Application, Permit Modifications, and Special
Permits (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1573.12, OMB Control No. 2050-0009.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2009.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 3005 of Subtitle C of RCRA requires treatment,
storage or disposal facilities (TSDFs) to obtain a permit. To obtain
the permit, the TSDFs must submit an application describing the
facility's operation. There are two parts to the RCRA permit
application--Part A and Part B. Part A defines the processes to be used
for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes; the design
capacity of such processes; and the specific hazardous wastes to be
handled at the facility. Part B requires detailed site specific
information such as geologic, hydrologic, and engineering data. In the
event that permit modifications are proposed by the applicant or EPA,
modifications must conform to the requirements under Sections 3004 and
3005.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 229
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are business or other for-profit; as well as State, Local,
or Tribal governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 145.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 33,260.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $7,956,839, which includes $2,254,188
annualized labor costs and $5,702,651 annualized capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a slight increase of 783 hours
in the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory
of Approved ICR Burdens due to revised estimates of the respondent
universe.

    Dated: November 19, 2009.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E9-28258 Filed 11-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78829-78831]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32475]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0897; FRL-9499-9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and oxides of sulfur
(SOx) emissions from facilities emitting 4 tons or more per
year of NOX or SOx in the year 1990 or any
subsequent year under the SCAQMD's Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
(RECLAIM) program. We are approving a local rule that regulates these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on February 21, 2012 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by January 19, 2012. If we
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0897, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4114<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the date that it was
adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD................................            2005  New Source Review for           06/03/11        09/27/11
                                                         RECLAIM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 24, 2011, EPA determined that the submittal for SCAQMD
Rule 2005 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    Table 2 lists the previous version of this rule approved into the
SIP.

                                  Table 2--Current SIP Approved Version of Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Rule No.                     Rule title           Adopted        Submitted     Approved FR citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005..............................  New Source Review for      05/06/2005      10/20/2005  08/29/2006, 71 FR
                                     RECLAIM.                                               51120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

    NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and
particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that
control NOX emissions.
    The RECLAIM program was initially adopted by SCAQMD in October
1993. The program established for many of the largest NOX
and SOx facilities in the South Coast Air Basin a regional
NOX and regional SOx emissions cap and trade
program, with the regional emissions caps declining over time until
2003. SCAQMD amended RECLAIM to lower the NOX and
SOx emissions caps in 2005 and 2010 respectively. The
program was designed to provide incentives for facilities to reduce
emissions and advance pollution control technologies by giving
facilities added flexibility in meeting emission reduction
requirements. A NOX or SOx RECLAIM Trading Credit
(RTC) is a limited authorization to emit one pound of NOX or
SOx during a specified one year period. A RECLAIM facility's
emissions may not exceed its RTC holding in any compliance year. A
RECLAIM facility may comply with this requirement by installing control
equipment, modifying their activities, or purchasing RTCs from other
facilities.
    The purpose of Rule 2005 was to address how the New Source Review
(NSR) program requirements would be implemented in the context of a cap
and trade program. Rule 2005 sets forth the pre-construction review
requirements for new or modified equipment or processes at RECLAIM
facilities.
    The rule revision affects existing RECLAIM facilities subject to
Rule 2005 whose annual allocations \1\ do not exceed its 1994 starting
allocation plus non-tradable credits. While such facilities are
required to hold sufficient RTCs to offset emissions increases by the
beginning of the first year, this rule revision eliminates the
requirement to hold sufficient RTCs to offset emissions increases at
the beginning of the second and subsequent years. SCAQMD states that
the primary purpose of the revision to Rule 2005 was to alleviate the
disincentives to existing facilities to modernize and replace older,
more polluting equipment with newer and cleaner equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The RECLAIM program at Rule 2000(c)(3) defines
``allocation'' as ``the number of RECLAIM Trading Credits (RTCs) [as
defined in paragraph (c)(63)] a RECLAIM facility holds for a
specific compliance year, as referenced in the Facility Permit.''
Consequently, ``annual allocation'' means the amount of RTCs the
facility holds for a compliance year, as authorized by its permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

 A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each NOX or VOC major source in
nonattainment areas (see sections 182(a)(2) and 182(f) of the Act), and
must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193 of
the Act). The SCAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified
as extreme for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305), so the RECLAIM
Program must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:

1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
2. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of
Title I; Proposed Rule'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR
55620, November 25, 1992.
3. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
4. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
5. ``Economic Incentive Programs--EPA published the guidance,
``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs'' on
January 2001 (EPA-452/R-01-001). The guidance available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/meta/m1201.html. This guidance applies to
discretionary economic incentive programs (EIPs) and represents the
agency's interpretation of what EIPs should contain in order to meet
the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Because this guidance is non-
binding and does not represent final agency action, EPA is using the
guidance as an initial screen to determine whether potential
approvability issues arise.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP

relaxations. While the CAA RACT requirements apply to the RECLAIM
program as a whole, the requirements do not specifically apply to Rule
2005 because Rule 2005 addresses the NSR permit program requirements.
In EPA's original approval of the RECLAIM program, EPA determined that
the RECLAIM program met the CAA RACT requirements. This amendment does
not change EPA's previous determination. This revision has no effect on
allowable emissions and would not result in emissions increases.
Furthermore, this revision is consistent with EPA's original
understanding of how the NSR offset requirement would be implemented in
the RECLAIM program. EPA's November 8, 1996 limited approval and
limited disapproval of RECLAIM (61 FR 57775) stated, ``The NSR offset
requirements would only be triggered if a particular facility exceeded
its initial RECLAIM allocation plus nontradeable emission allocation.''
(see 61 FR 57777) The Technical Support Document (TSD) has more
information on our evaluation.

C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the RECLAIM rules.

D. Public comment and final action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register,we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we
receive adverse comments by January 19, 2012, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on February 21, 2012. This will incorporate the
rule into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 18, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220, is amended by adding and reserving paragraph
(c)(403) and by adding paragraph (c)(404) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (404) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were
submitted on September 27, 2011, by the Governor's Designee.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference
    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District
    (1) Rule 2005, ``New Source Review for RECLAIM,'' amended on June
3, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2011-32475 Filed 12-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 64429]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 31, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of
Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 29, 2018.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

                                              Special Permits Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of the special permits
       Application No.                 Applicant          Regulation(s) affected              thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7945-M.......................  MEGGITT SAFETY SYSTEMS,   173.304a(a)(1)..........  To modify the special permit
                                INC.                                                to authorize additional
                                                                                Class 2.2 hazmat to the
                                                                                permit. (modes 1,2,3,4).
12184-M......................  WELDSHIP CORPORATION....  173.302a(b)(2),           To modify the special permit
                                                          173.302a(b)(3),           to remove the year
                                                          173.302a(b)(4),           restriction from the
                                                          173.302a(b)(5),           required CGA pamphlet.
                                                          180.205(c), 180.205(f),   (modes 1,2,3,4).
                                                          180.205(g), 180.205(i),
                                                          180.209(a), 180.213.
14857-M......................  WESTERN SALES & TESTING   180.209.................  To modify the special permit
                                OF AMARILLO INC.                                    to clarify the neck flange/
                                                                                sleeve inspection and
                                                                                cleaning requirements and to
                                                                                authorize additional Class
                                                                                2.1 and 2.2 hazmat. (modes
                                                                                1,2,3,4).
20378-M......................  LG CHEM.................  172.101(j)..............  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to authorize fiberboard
                                                                                boxes as outer packaging.
                                                                                (mode 4).
20500-M......................  CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF  ........................  To modify the special permit
                                TOXIC SUBSTANCES                                    issued on an emergency basis
                                CONTROL.                                            and make it permanent. (mode
                                                                                1).
20584-M......................  BATTERY SOLUTIONS, LLC..  173.185(f)(3),            To modify the special permit
                                                          173.185(c)(1)(iii),       to authorize the use of
                                                          173.185(c)(1)(iv),        thermally insulating fire
                                                          173.185(c)(1)(v),         suppressant material in a
                                                          173.185(c)(3),            sufficient quantity and
                                                          173.185(f).               manner that will suppress
                                                                                lithium battery fires, heat
                                                                                and smoke and absorbs the
                                                                                smoke, gases and flammable
                                                                                vapors and electrolytes
                                                                                during a thermal runaway
                                                                                incident. (modes 1,2,3).
20612-M......................  WILCO MACHINE & FAB, INC  178.345-7(a)(1), 178.345- To modify the special permit
                                                          3(a).                     to remove the annual testing
                                                                                requirement for some
                                                                                specific tanks. (mode 1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-27111 Filed 12-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4909-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50414-50420]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20742]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9451-7]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA, Region 2, is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion
of the Sayreville Landfill Superfund Site (Site), located in the
Borough of Sayreville, Middlesex County, 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 Notice of Deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence
of the State of New Jersey, through the Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP). EPA and NJDEP have determined that all appropriate
remedial 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 will be effective September 29, 2011
unless EPA receives significant adverse comments by September 14, 2011.
If significant adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of this 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-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: To the attention of Diane Salkie, Remedial Project
Manager, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, New
York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway,
18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation (Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.).
    Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1983-0002; EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the 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 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 comments. If you
send e-mail comments 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 electronic comments,
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM that 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 comments. 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 can be available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records
Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, Phone: 212-
637-4308, Hours: Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, 401 East State Street, Trenton,
New Jersey 08625-0410, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Salkie, Remedial Project
Manager, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, New
York 10007-1866, telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
e-mail at<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 2 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Sayreville Landfill Superfund Site (Site) from the National
Priorities List (NPL). 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 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, a site deleted from the NPL
remains eligible for remedial actions if conditions at the site warrant
such action.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective September 29, 2011 unless EPA
receives significant adverse comments by September 14, 2011. Along with
this direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing the Notice
of Intent to Delete in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
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 Sayreville Landfill Superfund
Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V
discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless
significant 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 parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented, and no further 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,
implementing 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 the
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 this 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) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the state, through the 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, the
Home News Tribune. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public
comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from
the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to
Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)
(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not
preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future
conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following summary provides the Agency's rationale for deleting
this Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The Sayreville Landfill Superfund site (CERCLIS ID: NJD980505754)
covers approximately 30 acres and is located in a moderately industrial
section of the Borough of Sayreville in Middlesex County, New Jersey,
approximately one mile south of Route 535 and one and a half miles
north of the Bordentown-Amboy Turnpike. Several small industries
surround the Site to the north, east and south. The South River, which
flows north, is a major tributary to the Raritan River and forms the
western border of the Site. The river waters adjacent to the Site are
designated for both primary and secondary contact recreation. Pond
Creek forms a portion of the Site boundary to the north and northwest
and Duck Creek on the south and southwest. These waters are classified
by the NJDEP as fresh water Non-Trout. The Site is partially located
within the tidal wetlands of the river with drainage swales along the
western part of the property.
    Land and Resource--The landfill property encompasses approximately
30 acres of land, of which, approximately 20 acres were used for waste
fill and contains buried wastes. The waste fill area rises above the
natural grade by approximately eight to ten feet, is covered with low-
lying vegetation and marsh grasses, and is bordered by small surface
streams. The eastern section of the Site, near Jernee Mill Road,
contains clusters of hardwood trees. The nearest residential
developments are located \1/2\ mile to the north and \1/4\ mile to the
west (across the South River, which is the western border of the
landfill).
    History of Contamination--From 1971 to August 1977, the Sayreville
Landfill was operated by the Borough of Sayreville as a licensed
municipal landfill which accepted primarily municipal solid wastes and
some light industrial wastes. Reports from previous investigations
indicate that hazardous wastes were disposed of at the Site between
1974 and 1977 when landfill operations ceased. In addition, it is
believed that additional quantities of hazardous wastes were dumped at
the Site after 1977.
    Initial Response--In 1980, a landfill closure plan, approved by the
NJDEP, was implemented by the Borough. Subsequent Site inspections,
however, revealed that the closure had not been properly completed. The
existing vegetative growth over the landfill had eroded in many areas
and failed to significantly impede the release of fugitive dust or
landfill gas emissions. In 1981, the NJDEP issued an order to the
Borough of Sayreville to cease violations regarding maintenance of the
landfill.
    Basis for Taking Action--In April 1981, the New Jersey Division of
Criminal Justice performed a magnetometer survey on a portion of the
landfill alleged to contain buried hazardous waste materials. Based on
the survey results, an estimated 30 drums were excavated from the
western peninsula of the waste-fill area. Analytical results detected
various hazardous compounds including pentachlorophenol, para-ethyl
toluene, chloroform, methyl bromide as well as pesticides and acids. In
August 1982, EPA visited the Site to gather information for ranking it
on the Federal Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). Based on the
data collected from this and previous investigations, the Site was
proposed for the NPL on December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58476) and placed
final on the NPL on September 8, 1983 (47 FR 40674).
    Redevelopment--During development of the 1998 OU2 ROD, the owner of
the property indicated its desire, after proper landfill closure to
reuse the property for recreational/commercial purposes. In 1998, NJDEP
agreed that recreational use of the property would be appropriate
provided that development of the landfill did not breach the landfill
cap, and that an additional monitoring program would be required to
ensure the integrity of the landfill cap. Reuse/redevelopment is
further addressed in the August 2010 deed restriction and the June 14,
2007 Classification Exception Area (CEA).

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    In February 1986, NJDEP engaged B&V Waste Science and Technology,
Inc. (BVWST) to begin a remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS) at the Site. The Phase I field work was conducted between
November 1986 and March 1987 and included the following activities:
installation of 21 groundwater monitoring wells and three piezometer
wells; collection of groundwater samples from on-site monitoring wells;
collection of surface water and stream sediment samples from 11
locations surrounding the Site; excavation of five test pits and
collection of soil samples; and air

monitoring at 52 locations. Phase II of the RI began in October 1989
and was intended to supplement and verify the findings and analytical
results from Phase I of the investigation. Phase II included the
following activities: collection of groundwater samples from 21 on-site
monitoring wells; collection of three surface water and six sediment
samples; excavation of 11 test pits; and collection of 12 drum contents
samples. Based on the results of the RI, BVWST completed the FS report
which identified and evaluated a number of remedial alternatives.

Selected Remedy

    On September 28, 1990, EPA issued a Record of Decision selecting a
remedial action plan for the landfill (OU1). The remedial action
objectives for the OU1 ROD include the following: prevent direct
contact with landfill soils and buried drums and minimize surface water
runoff which contributes to landfill erosion; minimize the migration of
soil and drum content contaminants into groundwater, surrounding
surface waters and stream sediments; and identify potential releases of
contaminants to groundwater, surface water and sediments. The major
components of the selected remedy include:
     Fencing of the Site to restrict access and the
establishment of deed restrictions;
     Capping of the wastefill with a NJDEP solid waste cap to
prevent infiltration and any potential releases of hazardous waste to
groundwater and surface waters;
     Construction of an access road and storm water and passive
gas management systems;
     Removal and off-site thermal treatment of buried drums
containing hazardous wastes;
     Intensive groundwater, surface waters, stream sediments
and air sampling and monitoring; and
     The installation of additional groundwater monitor wells
within the deep Farrington aquifer.
    In a supplemental investigation, a third round of water sampling
was conducted on the 21 wells in addition to installing two more deep
wells in the deep Farrington Sand aquifer.
    These successive sampling events indicated that the contaminant
concentrations had declined over time. The deep Farrington Sand aquifer
was determined to have no contaminants above the NJ Ground-Water
Quality Standards. On June 30, 1997, EPA issued an Explanation of
Significant Differences (OU1 ESD) which modified the original cleanup
selected in the 1990 OU1 ROD. The OU1 ESD documented that EPA and
NJDEP, after further review of the circumstances surrounding the Site,
including additional monitoring data, determined that installation of
an additional deep well into the Farrington Sand aquifer was not
necessary.
    Based on the findings of the various investigations, the fact that
there are no known users of the perched and shallow aquifers and that
ground-water contaminant concentrations appeared to be decreasing, on
September 23, 1998, the NJDEP, in consultation with EPA, issued a ROD
for off-site sediments, surface water, and groundwater (OU2). The OU2
ROD selected as the remedy, ``No Further Action'' for surface water and
sediments, and ``No Further Action with Monitoring'' for groundwater.
The OU2 ROD also called for:
     Monitoring of the wells surrounding the landfill to verify
the effectiveness of the landfill cap and to ensure that the landfill
is not contaminating the groundwater.
     Implementation of a Deed Notice to prevent any intrusive
activities into the landfill cap.
     Implementation of a Classification Exception Area (CEA)
for the shallow aquifer in the vicinity of the Site.

Response Actions

    Source Control--The final remedial design (RD) was approved in
February 1996.
    Actual on-site construction began on June 30, 1997, and was
substantially completed by July 1998. A Preliminary Closeout Report was
issued by EPA on September 28, 1998. O'Brien and Gere Engineers
certified final construction completion in June 1999. EPA approved the
Remedial Action Report on September 30, 1999. The Remedial Action
Report contains detailed information on the construction and
demonstrates that the remedy is operational and functional.
    The PRPs selected IEM Sealand/ThermoRetec as the prime construction
contractor on May 5, 1997 and O'Brien and Gere was selected as the
oversight contractor. Major work activities included: site clearing and
grubbing, waste relocation from the northern peninsula to the main
landfill; waste removal from the demolition area and perimeter areas
and relocation to the main landfill; regrading of the main landfill cap
area; construction of the landfill cap system; placement of topsoil and
seeding; gas vent installation; monitoring well abandonment;
retrofitting of monitoring wells to accommodate the final grade; drum
removal; and wetlands mitigation.
    The perimeter of the Site was cleared and installation of the
perimeter soil and erosion control measures was completed. Excavation
of waste from the northern landfill proceeded with excavation, hauling,
placement and compaction of materials to the main landfill area. Upon
completion of excavation, confirmation soil samples were collected to
ensure cleanup levels were attained. Construction of the cap system
included a riprap channel around the perimeter of the cap to allow
drainage. The cap consists of a six-inch sand bedding layer with geo-
membrane liner placed on the sand. On top of the liner, a geo-net
drainage system was installed. The next layer consists of 18-inch
embankment material covered with six inches of topsoil. Eighteen drums
of solid waste and 17 drums of liquid waste were transported off site
by Waste Minimization Sciences, Inc. on April 30, 1998 for disposal by
incineration. Two freshwater wetland mitigation areas were developed at
the northeast and southeast corners of the main landfill. Three
inspections were made following the creation of the wetlands mitigation
areas to document types and amounts of vegetation and to determine
survival rates of the plant species.
    Fencing was installed extending several hundred feet along Jernee
Mill Road in both directions from the entrance gate. At both ends, the
fence then turns westward towards the South River and proceeds
approximately halfway to the River, preventing access to the landfill
Site from areas other than wetlands. ``No Trespassing'' signs have also
been posted around the perimeter of the landfill Site. The deed notice
was recorded in Middlesex County on August 10, 2010. In March 2003, in
accordance with the OU2 ROD requirement for the establishment of a
State Classification Exception Area (CEA), municipal engineers for the
Borough of Sayreville, O'Brien and Gere Engineers, provided NJDEP with
information that was placed in the State's CEA database which
identifies what areas of the Site have ground-water contamination in
excess of New Jersey Ground-Water Quality Standards. The CEA was
established by NJDEP on June 14, 2007.

Cleanup Goals

    After the composite cap system was installed, groundwater
monitoring was conducted semi-annually from August 1991 until August
2004 and continued annually until November 2007. From 2008-2010 a
review of groundwater data and on-site gas monitoring was performed and
a revision to the O&M plan was submitted to NJDEP. Over the

two year period of 2008-2010, DEP approved an exemption from conducting
groundwater sampling, however, annual reports for inspections and gas
monitoring continued during this period. The next round of groundwater
samples were collected in 2010.
    According to the Post-Closure O&M Plan groundwater is sampled from
ten monitoring wells in three water bearing zones: perched, shallow and
deep. The applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
for the groundwater at the Site are the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection Ground Water Quality Standards (GWQSs).
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) benzene, chlorobenzene and
chloroethene, have historically been the only VOCs above the ARARs in
the perched or shallow zone wells. The levels have demonstrated
significant decreases in concentration in the last few years.
Historically, one semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) was detected in
the shallow and deep zones but is not considered Site related and is
below the ARARs. Inorganic compounds found throughout the Site are
arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, nickel, manganese,
sodium and thallium. Aluminum, iron, manganese and sodium reflect
regional background conditions and are not thought to be Site related.
Inorganic concentrations have fluctuated over the fourteen rounds of
sampling, but have shown a decrease and stability since 2006.
    Perched Zone--Three wells located in the perched water bearing
zone, MW-8, MW-11 and P-5 are within the boundaries of the landfill
where wastefill was placed. In 1989, during Phase II of the Remedial
Investigation the levels of chloroethane, methylene chloride, benzene,
antimony and beryllium were above the ARARs in groundwater from wells
MW-8 and MW-11. Piezometer well P-5 was installed at a later time and
showed elevated results of the same compounds in addition to
chlorobenzene, cadmium, chromium, nickel and sodium. Lead in well P-5
peaked at a level of 100 [mu]g/L in 2001 but has since declined to 6.7
[mu]g/L, below the MCL of 15 [micro]g/L in 2010. The 2010 sampling
results demonstrate that methylene chloride, antimony, beryllium,
chromium and nickel are either non-detect or below the ARARs in the
three wells. Elevated iron, manganese and sodium reflect regional
background conditions. Benzene, chlorobenzene and chloroethane have
decreased significantly, but remain slightly elevated in the three
monitoring wells located within the former wastefill disposal area.
However, the groundwater meets ARARs in the monitoring well located at
the downgradient boundary of the waste management area.
    Shallow Zone--Under the Post-Closure O&M Plan there are currently
four wells in the shallow water bearing zone being monitored. Wells MW-
5S and MW-6S are located within the landfill area on the west side of
the landfill and two wells are hydraulically upgradient wells: P-1 to
the north of the landfill and MW-3 to the east of the landfill. In the
western wells antimony, beryllium, methylene chloride and acetone
concentrations began above the ARARs and showed non-detect or below
ARARs in 2010. Arsenic also remains above the GWQS in both on site
wells, however below the MCLs in MW-6S. The hydraulically upgradient
wells showed arsenic, chromium, nickel, methylene chloride and acetone
at levels above the ARARs historically and non-detect in 2010.
Piezometer well P-1 initially showed benzene at a level of 15 [mu]g/L
and has fluctuated from non-detect to the current level of 1.3 [mu]g/L
slightly above the NJDEP GWQS of 1 [mu]g/L and below the MCL of 5
[mu]g/L. Since P-1 is upgradient, the contamination most likely
originates from another source.
    Deep Zone--Three monitoring wells are in the deep water bearing
zone or the Farrington Aquifer. MW-1D and MW-14 are both upgradient and
north of the landfill while MW15 is located south of the landfill.
Historically, acetone, methylene chloride, benzene and 1,2-
dichloroethane were above the ARARs in the upgradient wells, but have
declined to the current result of non-detect. No organic compounds were
above ARARs in MW-15. Lead in well MW-1D peaked at 130 [mu]g/L in 2004
but has since declined to 10 [mu]g/L, below the MCL of 15 [mu]g/L.
Elevated levels of aluminum, iron, manganese and sodium were found in
all three deep wells, however, reflect regional background conditions.
    Summary--Although the on-site wells located in the waste management
area and upgradient of the Site remain contaminated with slightly
elevated levels of organic contaminants of concern, the downgradient
well shows levels below the MCLs. The only inorganic contaminants of
concern still present in the 2010 results are lead and arsenic. The
lead was found in P-5 (perched well) located on site and MW-1D (deep
well), upgradient of the site. Both results are above the GWQS but
below the MCLs. Although arsenic remains above the GWQS in MW-6S
(shallow well), it is below the MCL and has decreased since the earlier
sampling events. Arsenic concentrations have fluctuated throughout the
sampling of MW-5S, and with the exception of the 2010 sampling, had
been below the MCLs.

Operation and Maintenance

    In 1986 and 1987, investigations indicated that gaseous emissions
of volatile compounds at the Site were almost exclusively methane. To
control the emissions, 22 passive vents were installed within the
landfill. In 1999, 13 soil gas monitoring probes were installed around
the perimeter of the landfill. However, these probes failed and were
replaced by the current monitoring system in 2003. The gas has been
monitored for methane, oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen quarterly
from the new probes since 2004. Methane has been consistently elevated
in soil gas probe P-6A located at the edge of the Site in the wetlands
area. All other probes have shown methane at a non-detect level or have
decreased to non-detect. In 2008, a forensic analysis of methane from
P-6A and landfill vent LV-15 was conducted and determined that the gas
is consistent with a biogenically-derived gas from landfill activities
and not from the natural wetlands. Probe P-6A is located near
monitoring well MW-6S which has not shown any volatile organic compound
contamination for several years. There are no health and safety
concerns due to the absence of confined space and distance to off-site
receptors.
    Detailed ``Sampling and Monitoring Reports'' were submitted by
O'Brien and Gere Engineers to the PRP Committee members, NJDEP, and EPA
on a semi-annual basis. These reports included both maintenance and
monitoring activities and identified any problems and corrective
measures. Routine O&M activities are performed by O'Brien and Gere
Engineers by contract with the PRP Committee at the Site in accordance
with the Operation and Maintenance Manual which was approved by NJDEP
in November 1995.
    Ten ground-water monitoring wells (three wells in the perched
aquifer, four wells in the shallow aquifer, one well in the water
bearing Woodbridge/South Amboy Clay, and two wells in the deep aquifer)
were sampled semi-annually over a period of five years. The final semi-
annual report was submitted in January 2005. Since then, monitoring has
been conducted on an annual basis until 2007. The latest data provided
to EPA was obtained from samples taken in November 2007 and December
2010.

Landfill gas is monitored using thirteen soil gas monitoring probes.
    In 2011, NJDEP approved the revised O&M Plan with the following
modifications to the sampling and analysis plan:
    (1) A reduction in the groundwater monitoring frequency to one
round per five years.
    (2) Monitoring of the deep water bearing zone (wells MW-1D, MW-14,
and MW-15) is discontinued since it is not part of the CEA, and
investigations and monitoring have demonstrated that no contamination
related to the landfill has impacted the deep water zone.
    (3) Semi-volatile organic contaminants are not detected in the
groundwater and were removed from the list of target analytes.
    (4) Based on the CEA constituents and recent analytical results,
the list of target organic analytes includes the following volatile
organic contaminants: benzene, chlorobenzene, chloroethane
    (5) Based on the CEA constituents and recent analytical results,
the list of target inorganic analytes was reduced to the following:
arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel and thallium; all other detected
inorganic constituents (iron, manganese, and sodium) that exceed the
GWQS reflect regional background conditions
    (6) A low flow purging and sampling methodology in general
conformance with the NJDEP Field Sampling Procedures Manual (2005)
should continue to be used to obtain a more accurate representation of
actual groundwater quality in the monitored water bearing zones.
    Following completion of the remedial construction, Site inspections
were performed monthly for two years and then quarterly thereafter. The
findings are recorded in the inspection and maintenance logs provided
in Appendix A of the ``Sampling and Monitoring Reports''. The
contractor cuts the grass on a monthly basis as needed, and performs
any necessary repairs to the liners and/or the soil gas monitoring
probes. Damage to the surface soil above the cap is also inspected and
repaired as necessary. The contractor is also responsible for
maintaining the integrity of the fence.
    Site inspections are conducted quarterly and reported to EPA and
DEP annually in the form of the Post-Closure Inspection and Maintenance
Form along with any necessary support information. The site inspection
investigates the conditions of the fence, security signs, access road
and gates as well as the state of the landfill cap, vegetation and
drainage. The 2010 Deed Notice places restrictions on the Site so that
no alteration, improvement or disturbance of the cap, or the landfill
materials can take place without prior approval from NJDEP.

Five-Year Review

    Two Five-Year Reviews have been conducted at the Site, the first in
2002, and the second in 2007. The implemented actions (OU-1 and OU-2)
taken at the Sayreville Landfill Superfund Site were found to be
protective of human health and the environment in the short-term and
that in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, the
final institutional controls needed to be implemented. The deed notice
was recorded in Middlesex County on August 10, 2010. Currently, there
are no exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks and
none are expected as long as the Site use does not change and the
engineered and access controls currently in place continue to be
properly operated, monitored, and maintained. In addition, the deed
notice has been recorded restricting land use and the CEA is in place
to restrict groundwater use providing for long-term protectiveness of
human health and the environment. The next five-year review will be
completed by June 2012.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities for this Site have been satisfied
as required in CERCLA sections 113(k) and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613 (k) and
9617. Throughout the removal and remedial process, EPA and the NJDEP
have kept the public informed of the activities being conducted at the
Site by way of public meetings, progress fact sheets, and the
announcement through local newspaper advertisement on the availability
of documents such as the RI/FS, Risk Assessment, ROD, Proposed Plan and
Five-Year Reviews. Notices associated with these community relations
activities were also mailed out to the area residents and other
concerned parties on the mailing list for the Site.

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

    The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if ``all
appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented,
and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate''
as stated in 40 CFR 300.425(e) (1) (ii). EPA, with the concurrence from
the State of New Jersey, through NJDEP, dated July 27, 2011, believes
that this criterion for deletion has been met. Consequently, EPA is
deleting this Site from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are
available in the Site files.
    The groundwater meets applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) at all monitoring wells located at the
downgradient boundary of the waste management area. The downgradient
wells outside the boundary of the landfill were removed from the
sampling plan based on had multiple years of sampling results with non-
detect for the site contaminants of concern.
    The deed notice was recorded in Middlesex County on August 10,
2010. Currently, there are no exposure pathways that could result in
unacceptable risks and none are expected as long as the Site engineered
and access controls currently in place continue to be properly
operated, monitored, and maintained. In addition, the deed notice has
been recorded restricting use and providing for long-term
protectiveness of human health and the environment.
    In March 2003, in accordance with the September 23, 1998 Record of
Decision requirement for the establishment of a State Classification
Exception Area (CEA), municipal engineers for the Borough of
Sayreville, O'Brien and Gere Engineers, provided NJDEP with information
that was placed in the State's CEA database which identifies what areas
of the Site have ground-water contamination in excess of New Jersey
Ground-Water Quality Standards. The CEA was established by NJDEP on
June 14, 2007.

V. Deletion Action

    EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New Jersey, has
determined that all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA
have been implemented, other than operation, maintenance and five-year
reviews, and no further action by responsible parties is appropriate.
Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is deleting the Site without prior publication. This
action will be effective September 29, 2011 unless EPA receives adverse
comments by September 14, 2011. If adverse comments are received within
the 30-day public comment period of this 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, if 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 received. In such a case, 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: August 4, 2011.
Judith Enck,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 2.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble Part 300 Title 40 of
Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

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

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

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry
for ``NJ Sayreville Landfill, Sayreville''.

[FR Doc. 2011-20742 Filed 8-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P