[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47205-47210]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18875]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0003; FRL 9842-7]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Direct Deletion of the Imperial Refining
Company Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Imperial Refining
Co. Superfund Site located in Ardmore, Carter County, Oklahoma, from
the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the
concurrence of the State of Oklahoma, through the Oklahoma Department
of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), because EPA has determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective September 19, 2013
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 4, 2013. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that
the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2000-0003, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow internet on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: Brian W. Mueller<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Brian W. Mueller; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6; Superfund Division (6SF-RA); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200; Dallas, Texas 75202-7167.
     Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6; 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700; Dallas, Texas 75202-2733;
Contact: Brian W. Mueller<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-AFUND-
2000-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and

made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment,
EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information
in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700; Dallas, Texas 75202-2733; hours of operation: Monday
through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m..
Contact: Brian W. Mueller<PHONE_NUMBER>.
 Ardmore Public Library; 320 E. Street NW.; Ardmore, Oklahoma
73401; Hours of Operation: Monday through Thursday 10:00 a.m. until
8:30 p.m.; Friday through Saturday, 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.; Sunday
1:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m.
 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality; 707 N. Robinson,
2nd floor: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102; Hours of operation: Monday
through Friday 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian W. Mueller, Remedial Project
Manager; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Superfund
Division (6SF-RL); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200; Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733,<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<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 6 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Imperial Refining Co. Superfund Site (Site), from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part
300 which is the Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of
sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health,
welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of
remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund).
As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL
remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions
warrant such actions.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective September 19, 2013 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by September 4, 2013. Along with this direct
final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent for
Deletion in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register. If
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period
on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the
deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as
appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the
deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent for Deletion 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 Imperial Refining Co.
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.
Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless
adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to the deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA has consulted with the state of Oklahoma prior to
developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of
Intent for Deletion co-published 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 ODEQ, has concurred on
this 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 for Deletion is being published in a major local newspaper, the
Daily Ardmoreite. The newspaper announces the 30-day public comment
period concerning the Notice of Intent for Deletion of the Site from
the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the 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 for Deletion 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 further response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

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

Site Background and History

    The Imperial Refining Co. Superfund Site (CERCLIS ID OK0002024099)
is the location of a former petroleum refinery that operated from 1917
to 1934 in Ardmore, Carter County, Oklahoma. The numerous tanks and
most of the buildings that were present on the Site during the
refinery's operation were dismantled between 1934 and 1948, leaving the
property as mixed wooded areas and open fields. No records have been
found that describe the types of activities that took place on the Site
after 1934. Currently, the land is privately owned by the Hogan Family,
L.L.C., and no commercial activities are taking place at the Site. The
legal description for the property is SE \1/4\, NE \1/4\, Section 20,
and SW \1/4\, NW \1/4\, Section 21, T4S, R2E, Indian Meridian, which is
located within the northeastern portion of the City of Ardmore, Carter
County, Oklahoma (Figure 1). The Site is divided into three parcels:
the West (36.5 acres), East (14.5 acres) and East Railroad (21 acres).
The Site covers approximately 72 acres and is bisected by U.S. Highway
142 and railroad tracks operated by the BNSF Railway Company. The
adjacent property to the north and east of Hwy 142 is occupied by a
facility that manufactures roofing shingles. Waste-water processing
lagoons operated by Valero Refining are located west of the Site, and
the rest of the immediately adjacent property is largely undeveloped.
    The Imperial Refining Co. began operations at the Site in 1917. The
eastern portion of the property was purchased in April 1917, and the
western portion was purchased three months later. Imperial Refining Co.
remained active for 17 years until it went bankrupt in 1934. Due to the
absence of environmental regulations during the operational period, no
permits, violations, inspections, or facility operation documentation
have been identified, and no records have been found that describe the
types of activities that took place on the Site. The ODEQ conducted a
Preliminary Assessment in September 1997 and a Site Inspection (SI) in
July 1998. During the SI and Removal Assessment, investigators noted 12
waste piles containing an asphalt-like material scattered throughout
the property. Soil, sediment, waste pile, and surface water samples
were collected. There were numerous pits, piles, and water impoundments
contaminated with metals and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
    The waste material was found in 12 distinct piles across the Site,
one vertical tank remnant, and one underground storage tank (UST). The
average thickness of the waste piles was approximately 1foot (ft), and
the benzo(a)pyrene concentrations range from 2.5 milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg) to 570 mg/kg. In addition to the waste material,
surface soil (0-1 ft below ground surface) and sediment (0-1 ft below
ground surface) had elevated concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene and
arsenic. The soil concentrations ranged from 1 mg/kg to 90 mg/kg for
arsenic and 0.04 mg/kg to 10.2 mg/kg for benzo(a)pyrene. The exposure
routes of concern were direct contact and ingestion. Sediments in
onsite intermittent drainages were indistinguishable from Site soils
except by their location within drainages; therefore, the drainage
sediments were considered soils for the remedial action. The sediment
concentrations range from 4.7 mg/kg to 33.4 mg/kg for arsenic and 0.062
mg/kg to 1.3 mg/kg for benzo(a)pyrene.
    Based on the results, ODEQ referred the property to the EPA for
further action. EPA conducted a Removal Assessment in 1998 to determine
the absence/presence of hazardous materials and the types and
concentrations and a second Removal Assessment in 1999 to estimate
waste pile volumes and evaluate disposal options. Based on these
results, the Site was proposed to the NPL on May 11, 2000, (Federal
Register: May 11, 2000 [Volume 65, No. 92, Page 30489-30495]) and was
finalized on July 27, 2000 (Federal Register: July 27, 2000 [Volume 65,
Number 145, Page 46096-46104)]). A Removal Action to install a
perimeter fence to secure the Site was conducted by EPA from June 29,
2004 through July 23, 2004.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

    The EPA and ODEQ negotiated a Cooperative Agreement under which the
ODEQ was the lead agency for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) with EPA acting as the supporting agency. From early 2005
through early 2007, contractors for the ODEQ conducted a RI/FS
including field sampling and investigation activities of soil,
sediment, surface water, ground water, and animal tissue. The RI/FS
identified the types, quantities, and locations of contaminants found
in these samples and developed ways to address the contamination. A
Human Health Risk Assessment and an Ecological Risk Assessment were
performed to determine the current and future effects of contaminants
on human health and the environment.
    On-site contamination included waste material, soil and sediment.
Arsenic and benzo(a)pyrene are the primary contaminants of concern. The
primary sources of contaminants are waste in an underground storage
tank and waste piles characterized as dry, asphalt-like material. The
waste material is found throughout the Site, and the benzo(a)pyrene
concentrations range from 2.5 mg/kg to 570 mg/kg. In addition to the
waste material, surface soil (0-1 ft below ground surface) and sediment
(0-1 ft below ground surface) have elevated concentrations of
benzo(a)pyrene and arsenic. The soil concentrations range from 1 mg/kg
to 90 mg/kg for arsenic and 0.04 mg/kg to 10.2 mg/kg for
benzo(a)pyrene. Sediments in on-site intermittent drainages are
indistinguishable from Site soils except by their location within
drainages; therefore, the drainage sediments are considered soils for
the remedial action as these remain dry most of the year.

Selected Remedy

    A proposed plan for the Site was issued in September 2007,
presenting the preferred alternative of excavation and offsite disposal
for the waste, contaminated soil, and contaminated sediment at the
Site. The Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on December 26, 2007.
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) were developed for Site soil,
sediment, and waste material.

Remedial Action Objectives

Surface Soil
     Prevent exposure to current and future human and
ecological receptors through ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation
of contaminated soil containing arsenic and benzo(a)pyrene

concentrations in excess of 5E-05 and 2.5E-05 excess cancer risk,
respectively.
Pond and Creek Sediment
     Prevent exposure to current and future human receptors
through ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of contaminated
sediment containing arsenic concentrations in excess of 5E-05 excess
cancer risk.
     Prevent exposure to current and future ecological
receptors through direct contact, food chain uptake, and incidental
ingestion of contaminated sediment containing benzo(a)pyrene
concentrations in excess of levels that are protective of ecological
receptors.
Waste Material
     Prevent exposure to human and ecological receptors through
ingestion and dermal contact.
     Prevent further migration of waste material contamination.
In order to achieve these RAOs, numerical risk-based cleanup levels
were established for each environmental medium based on the residential
scenario.

Response Actions

    The EPA began on-site Remedial Action construction on February 13,
2008. During remedial action, a total of approximately 105,993 cubic
yards of waste/soil and sediment were removed from the Site and shipped
to an offsite landfill. Excavated areas were backfilled, graded and
seeded after confirmation sampling indicated that cleanup levels have
been met. As excavation activities progressed, waste was found along
the borders of the property, throughout the ponds, and surrounding a
high pressure gas line. Excavation and removal of waste along the
borders was not feasible, safe or practical due to its proximity to
sloped areas supporting the highway, the rail line, and business
property, as well as its depth under significant volumes of
uncontaminated overburden.

ROD Amendment

    A ROD amendment proposed plan for the Site was issued in November
2008, presenting an additional containment component to the remedy
selected in the ROD in areas of the Site where excavation would be
impracticable and potentially dangerous to the original excavation and
offsite disposal remedy. On February 20, 2009, the EPA Superfund
Division Director for Region 6 signed a ROD amendment.
    Based on excavation activities and delineation pits throughout the
east and west ponds, surface sediment exceeding the ecological cleanup
numbers was completely removed. Due to the presence of 18 inches of
uncontaminated overburden, the complete removal of surface sediment
exceeding the ecological cleanup numbers, and the unknown locations at
depth throughout the remaining areas of the ponds, no further
excavation occurred in the ponds. Excavation in close proximity to the
high pressure gas line was not recommended or considered safe;
therefore, waste remains around the gas line within the easement
boundaries.
    The cleanup levels for the Site were reevaluated in the 2009 ROD
Amendment. Because waste remains in-place, cleanup levels for the Site
changed from residential to industrial land use. The soil cleanup level
for benzo(a)pyrene changed to 5.27 mg/kg. The soil cleanup level is
still in line with the latest toxicity toxicological benchmarks. The
soil cleanup level for arsenic did not change, and no change was made
to sediment cleanup levels. The Site is restricted to industrial use
through the enforcement of institutional controls (ICs).

Containment

    The 2009 ROD Amendment required the placement of a clay barrier
over waste material left in place. The materials left in place are
identified as non-hazardous waste and all data indicate that the
leaching potential of this material is below regulatory limits for
characteristic hazardous waste categories and land disposal
restrictions. The backfill material is identified as clayey sand and is
expected to have a low hydraulic conductivity (within the range of 1 x
10-3 centimeters per second to 1 x 10-5 centimeters per second). As
such, backfill of the excavated areas and areas above the waste
material eliminates the potential for direct contact, ingestion, and
migration as well as provides for slope control, drainage control, and
the establishment of vegetation.
    All threats at the Site have been addressed through excavation and
disposal of contaminated material, isolation and capping of non-
hazardous materials, installation of fencing, posting of warning signs,
and implementation of institutional controls. Remedial activities
included:
     Transportation and disposal (at a permitted off-site waste
disposal facility) of approximately 31,621 yd\3\ of debris (non-
hazardous debris, foundry sand, and slag) and the asbestos-containing
material in the on-site building and scattered throughout the Site;
     Removal and disposal of an electrical transformer, and
underground storage tank in the vicinity of MW-20 and Lead Area 1, and
the management and disposal of foundry bag filters identified as a
listed K061 waste material;
     Excavation and treatment (solidification/stabilization, if
necessary) of approximately 13,600 yd\3\ of soils with lead
concentrations equal to or greater than 500 mg/kg to a maximum depth of
1.5 feet bgs and approximately 3,000 yd\3\ of soils stockpiled at the
Site from a previous removal action, and transportation and disposal
(at a permitted off-site wastes disposal facility) of the treated and
untreated soils;
     Excavation and disposal (at a permitted off-site waste
disposal facility) of approximately 2,100 yd\3\ of soils contaminated
with benzo(a)pyrene, or other organics, at the MW-11 location, and
total petroleum hydrocarbons at the MW-20 location;
     Confirmation sampling for several locations identified to
have been impacted by either semi-volatile organic compounds.

Cleanup Goals

    The soil remedial action at the Site consisted of the sampling and
excavation, including the proper disposal of the soils contaminated
with arsenic greater than 20 mg/kg and benzo(a)pyrene greater than 5.27
mg/kg. The soil cleanup levels were based on a residential scenario of
20 mg/kg for arsenic and an industrial scenario of 1.55 mg/kg for
benzo(a)pyrene specified in Record of Decision Amendment. The sediment
remedial action at the Site consisted of the sampling and excavation,
including the proper disposal of the sediments contaminated with
arsenic greater than 20 mg/kg and benzo(a)pyrene greater than 0.782 mg/
kg. The sediment cleanup levels were based on a residential scenario of
20 mg/kg for arsenic and an ecological scenario of 0.782 mg/kg for
benzo(a)pyrene specified in the Record of Decision. Institutional
controls were required for the soils since the soils were cleaned up to
an industrial level which did not exceed the cleanup level below 1.5
feet below ground surface. A total of 107,299 tons, approximately 105,
993 cubic yards, of material were sent to the Waste Connection Landfill
in Alex, Oklahoma.
    The EPA reviewed the remedial action contract and the construction
work for compliance with quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)
protocols. Construction activities at the Site were determined to be
consistent with the ROD and adhered to the approved quality assurance
plan which

incorporated all EPA and State requirements. Confirmatory inspections,
independent testing, audits, and evaluations of materials and
workmanship were performed in accordance with the technical
specifications and plans. The EPA Remedial Project Manager and State
regulators visited the site during construction activities to review
construction progress and evaluate and review the results of QA/QC
activities. No deviations or non-adherence to QA/QC protocols, or
specifications were identified.
    The quality assurance project plan incorporated all EPA and State
QA/QC procedures and protocols. All monitoring equipment was calibrated
and operated in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The
EPA analytical methods were used for all confirmation and monitoring
samples during RA activities. Contract laboratory program-like
procedures and protocol were followed for soil, sediments, and water
analyses during the RA using a private laboratory.
    The EPA contract for the remedial action contained provisions for
performing sampling during all remedial activities in order to verify
that remedial objectives were met, to ensure quality control and
assurance for all excavation and construction activity, and to ensure
protection and safety of the public, the environment, and the onsite
worker. Sampling was conducted in accordance with the Site Field
Sampling Plan and all analytical results are below the established
cleanup levels for an industrial reuse scenario. In addition, all
backfill confirmation sample results met the established cleanup levels
for an industrial reuse scenario. All analytical data was independently
validated, and the EPA determined that analytical results were accurate
to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA.

Operation and Maintenance

    An Operation and Maintenance (O&M) plan for the Site is in effect
and is required because waste has been left in place and the Site has
been restricted to industrial use. ODEQ is responsible for conducting
O&M activities on annual basis or more frequently if necessary. O&M
activities include Site inspections for erosion, property uses, and
enforcement of the Institutional Controls (ICs). This activity may also
include maintenance of the slopes through grading, seeding, or
importing of backfill that may be needed. Maintenance of these slopes
will provide continued slope support, continued drainage control, and
continued vegetation growth. Areas of primary interest will include the
slopes along Hwy 142, Atlas Roofing Inc., Oneok Gas Pipeline, BNSF
Railway, and Valero Refining. Site operational and functional
activities were conducted by EPA until ODEQ took over O&M of the Site
in December 2012.

Institutional Controls

    All administrative tools have been implemented at the Imperial
Refining Superfund Site. Seven deed notices/covenants identifying
restrictions were filed with the Carter County Clerk from June 2009 to
August 2011. Appendix N of the Final Remedial Action Report contains
copies of each deed notice/covenant.
    Some of the deed restrictions include the following requirements
and information:
     No residential land use,
     No digging below 5 feet where waste remains in place,
     No activities that will disturb or cause erosion of the
sediments within the ponds located on the site,
     No excavations causing erosion,
     No excavation below base material of the road bed (State
Highway 142)
    Roadway and right-of-way, and
     No ground water taken or well drilling allowed.

Five-Year Review

    Five-Year Reviews of the Site are statutorily required because
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site
above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
The first five-year review was conducted at the Site in February 2013.
The implemented action taken at the Imperial Refining Superfund Site
was found to be protective of human health and the environment in the
long-term. The Imperial Refining Co. Superfund Site's first Five-Year
Review Report protectiveness determination follows:

    The selected remedy for the Site currently protects human health
and the environment because the remedy is performing as intended and
institutional controls are in place restricting land and groundwater
use. The remedy will remain protective of human health and the
environment in the long-term provided O&M activities continue, and
the institutional controls remain in place.

    The next Five-Year Review will be performed in 2018.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. Throughout the Site's history, the community has been
interested and involved with Site activity. The EPA has kept the
community and other interested parties updated on Site activities
through informational meetings, fact sheets, and public meetings.
Documents in the deletion docket which the EPA relied on for
recommendation for the deletion from the NPL are available to the
public in the information repositories, and a notice of availability of
the Notice of Intent for Deletion has been published in the Daily
Ardmorite to satisfy public participation procedures required by 40 CFR
300.425(e)(4).

Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met

    The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in
the ROD and ROD Amendment for all pathways of exposure. All selected
remedial action objectives and clean-up goals are consistent with
agency policy and guidance. No further Superfund responses are needed
to protect human health and the environment at the Site.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the
NPL where no further response is appropriate.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Oklahoma, through the
ODEQ, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA
have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective September 19, 2013 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
September 4, 2013. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the
deletion and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to
comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There
will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Dated: July 25, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

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

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

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

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

Appendix B--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended by removing the entry
``Imperial Refining Company'', ''Ardmore'', ``OK''.

[FR Doc. 2013-18875 Filed 8-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33692-33694]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0495]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Tacoma Freedom Fair Air Show, Commencement Bay,
Tacoma, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of Commencement Bay in Tacoma, Washington during the Tacoma
Freedom Fair Air Show. The safety zone is necessary to help ensure the
safety of the maritime public during the air show on July 4, 2010 and
will do so by prohibiting any person or vessel from entering or
remaining in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Puget Sound or Designated Representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. on July 4,
2010 unless cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0495 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0495 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail LTJG Ian Hanna, Sector Seattle,
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because immediate action is necessary to
ensure safety of participants and spectators in the Tacoma Freedom Fair
Air show.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Due to the need for immediate
action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect life,
property and the environment; therefore, a 30-day notice is
impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the
safety zone's intended objectives of protecting participants and
spectators in the Tacoma Freedom Fair Air show.

Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is establishing this temporary safety zone to help
ensure the safety of the maritime public during the Tacoma Freedom Fair
Air Show taking place along Ruston Way in Commencement Bay near Tacoma,
Washington. The safety zone is necessary because of the numerous
potential hazards associated with air show events.

Discussion of Rule

    The temporary safety zone created by this rule encompasses all
waters within the points 47[deg]-17.63' N., 122[deg]-28.724' W.;
47[deg]-17.059' N., 122[deg]-27.538' W.; 47[deg]-16.66' N., 122[deg]-
27.963' W.; and 47[deg]-17.231' N., 122[deg]-29.149' W. The zone
resembles a rectangle measuring approximately 2000 yards along the
shoreline of Ruston Way and extending approximately 1100 yards into
Commencement Bay. Floating markers will be placed by the sponsor of the
event to delineate the boundaries of the safety zone. All persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering or remaining in the safety zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or Designated
Representative. The Captain of the Port Puget Sound may be assisted by
other local, state, and Federal agencies in the enforcement of this
safety zone.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This rule is not a significant regulatory action because it is
minimal in size and short in duration.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
the affected waterway during the time of enforcement. This safety zone
will not

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for the following reasons: It is minimal in size, short in
duration and vessel traffic can pass safely around the zone.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves a safety zone on the waters of
Commencement Bay in Tacoma, Washington during the Tacoma Freedom Fair
Air Show.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination will be available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary section 33 CFR 165.T13-148 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-148:  Safety Zone; Tacoma Freedom Fair Air Show,
Commencement Bay, Tacoma, Washington.

    (a) Location. The following area is a designated safety zone: All
waters within the points 47[deg]-17.63' N., 122[deg]-28.724' W.;
47[deg]-17.059' N., 122[deg]-27.538' W.; 47[deg]-16.66' N., 122[deg]-
27.963' W.; and 47[deg]-17.231' N., 122[deg]-29.149' W.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 165, subpart C, no vessel operator may enter, transit, moor,
or anchor within

this safety zone, except for vessels authorized by the Captain of the
Port or Designated Representative.
    (c) Authorization. All vessel operators who desire to enter the
safety zone must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port or
Designated Representative by contacting either the on-scene patrol
craft on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16 or the Coast Guard Sector Seattle Joint
Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Effective Period. This rule is effective from 8 a.m. until 4:30
p.m. on July 4, 2010 unless canceled sooner by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: June 1, 2010.
S.W. Bornemann,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2010-14293 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64895-64896]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22772]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9952-78-OECA]

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of
Public Meeting and Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public
Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby
provides notice that the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC) will meet on the dates and times described below. All
meetings are open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged
to provide comments relevant to the specific issues being considered by
the NEJAC. For additional information about registering to attend the
meeting or to provide public comment, please see ``REGISTRATION'' under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Due to a limited space, seating at the NEJAC
meeting will be on a first-come, first served basis. Pre-registration
is highly suggested.

DATES: The NEJAC will convene Wednesday, October 12, 2016 and Thursday,
October 13, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time each day.
The theme for this meeting will be a reflection on the past eight years
of environmental justice at EPA. The discussion will focus on this
administration's accomplishments, challenges and future of furthering
environmental justice throughout the work at EPA. One public comment
period relevant to the specific issues being considered by the NEJAC
(see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) is scheduled for Wednesday, October 12,
2016, starting at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Members of the public who
wish to participate during the public comment period are highly
encouraged to pre-register by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday,
October 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The NEJAC meeting will be held at U.S. EPA Headquarters One
Potomac Yard South, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions or correspondence concerning
the teleconference meeting should be directed to Karen L. Martin, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW. (MC2201A), Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; via
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or

by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Additional information about the NEJAC is
available at: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/nejac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The Charter of the NEJAC states that the
advisory committee ``will provide independent advice and
recommendations to the Administrator about broad, crosscutting issues
related to environmental justice. The NEJAC's efforts will include
evaluation of a broad range of strategic, scientific, technological,
regulatory, community engagement and economic issues related to
environmental justice.''

Registration

    Registration for the October 12-13, 2016, public face-to-face
meeting will be processed at http://nejac-public-meeting-october-12th-13th-2016.eventbrite.com. Pre-registration is highly suggested.
Registration for the October 12-13, 2016, public meeting teleconference
option will be processed at http://nejac-public-teleconference-october-12th-13th-2016.eventbrite.com. Pre-registration is required.
Registration for the October 12-13, 2016, teleconference meeting closes
at 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 05, 2016. The
deadline to sign up to speak during the public comment period, or to
submit written public comments, is 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time on
Wednesday, October 05, 2016. When registering, please provide your
name, organization, city and state, email address, and telephone number
for follow up. Please also indicate whether you would like to provide
public comment during the meeting, and whether you are submitting
written comments before the Wednesday, October 05, 2016, deadline.

A. Public Comment

    Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment
period will be limited to seven (7) minutes. To accommodate the number
of people who want to address the NEJAC, only one representative of a
particular community, organization, or group will be allowed to speak.
Written comments can also be submitted for the record. The suggested
format for individuals providing public comments is as follows: Name of
speaker; name of organization/community; city and state; and email
address; brief description of the concern, and what you want the NEJAC
to advise EPA to do. Written comments received by registration
deadline, will be included in the materials distributed to the NEJAC
prior to the teleconference. Written comments received after that time
will be provided to the NEJAC as time allows. All written comments
should be sent to Karen L. Martin, EPA, via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. Information About Services for Individuals With Disabilities or
Requiring English Language Translation Assistance

    For information about access or services for individuals requiring
assistance, please contact Karen L. Martin, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request special accommodations for a
disability or other assistance, please submit your request at least
seven (7) working days prior to the meeting, to give EPA sufficient
time to process your request. All requests should be sent to the
address, email, or phone/fax number listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION, CONTACT section.

    Dated: August 29, 2016.
Matthew Tejada,
Designated Federal Officer, National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council.
[FR Doc. 2016-22772 Filed 9-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 59620-59621]
[DOCID:fr09oc08-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2085-014; 67-113; 2175-014; 120-020]

Southern California Edison, California; Notice of Intent To Hold
a Public Meeting To Discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the Big Creek Alp Hydroelectric Projects

October 2, 2008.
    On September 12, 2008, the Commission issued a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (draft EIS) for four Big Creek Hydroelectric Projects
and mailed it to resource and land management agencies, interested
organizations, Tribes, and individuals.
    The Environmental Protection Agency noticed the draft EIS in the
Federal Register on September 19, 2008 (73 FR 54393); comments are due
November 3, 2008. The draft EIS evaluates the environmental
consequences and developmental benefits of issuing new licenses for
operating and maintaining the Mammoth Pool Project (FERC No. 2085); Big
Creek Nos. 2A, 8 and Eastwood (FERC No. 67); Big Creek Nos. 1 and 2
(FERC No. 2175); and Big Creek No. 3 (FERC No. 120), located in Fresno
and Madera Counties, California. Besides evaluating the projects as
they now operate, the draft EIS evaluates the projects with the
Settlement Agreement and with staff-recommended measures.
    The public meeting, which will be recorded by an official
stenographer, is scheduled as follows.
    Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008.
    Time: 1-4 p.m. (PST).
    Place: Piccadilly Inn Airport, 5115 East McKinley Ave, Fresno, CA
93727, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    At the meeting, resource agency personnel and other interested
persons will have the opportunity to provide

oral and written comments and recommendations regarding the draft EIS
for the Commission's public record.
    For further information, contact James Fargo at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-23934 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46800-46802]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19177]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA 2012-0006-N-8]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its
implementing regulations, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
hereby announces that it is seeking renewal of the following currently
approved information collection activities. Before submitting these
information collection requirements for clearance by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), FRA is soliciting public comment on
specific aspects of the activities identified below.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than October 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on any or all of the following
proposed activities by mail to either: Ms. Janet Wylie, Office Planning
and Administration, RPD-3, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 20, Washington, DC 20590, or Ms. Kimberly
Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC
20590. Commenters requesting FRA to acknowledge receipt of their
respective comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard
stating, ``Comments on OMB control number 2130-0584. Alternatively,
comments may be transmitted via facsimile to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via
email to Ms. Wylie at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or to Ms. Toone at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please refer to the assigned OMB control number in
any correspondence submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in
response to this notice in a subsequent notice and include them in its
information collection submission to OMB for approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Janet Wylie, Office of Planning
and Administration, RPD-3, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 20 Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202)
493-6353) or Ms. Kimberly Toone, Office of Information Technology, RAD-
20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail
Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). (These
telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, Sec.  2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised
at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part
1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60-days notice to the public
for comment on information collection activities before seeking
approval for reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A);
5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), 1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically, FRA
invites interested respondents to comment on the following summary of
proposed information collection activities regarding (i) whether the
information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the activities will have
practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden
of the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (iii) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (iv) ways for FRA to minimize the burden of
information collection activities on the public by automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses). See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)(I)-(iv); 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(1)(I)-(iv). FRA believes that

soliciting public comment will promote its efforts to reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information mandated by Federal regulations. In summary, FRA reasons
that comments received will advance three objectives: (i) Reduce
reporting burdens; (ii) ensure that it organizes information collection
requirements in a ``user friendly'' format to improve the use of such
information; and (iii) accurately assess the resources expended to
retrieve and produce information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    Below is a brief summary of the information collection activities
that FRA will submit for clearance by OMB as required under the PRA:
    Title: Solicitation of Applications and Notice of Funds
Availability for High-Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail
Service-Capital Assistance and Planning Grants Program.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0584.
    Status: Regular Review.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Abstract: After 60 years and more than 1.8 trillion investment
dollars, the United States has developed the world's most advanced
highway and aviation systems. During this time, the nation has made a
relatively modest investment in passenger rail systems. As congestion
on highways and in the air continues to grow and environmental costs
mount, there is a growing need for diverse transportation options.
    In 2009, President Obama announced a new vision to address the
nation's transportation challenges. He called for a collaborative
effort among the Federal government, States, railroads, and other
stakeholders to help transform America's transportation system. The
President's vision seeks to create an efficient high-speed passenger
rail system to connect inner-city communities across America.
    Developing a comprehensive high-speed intercity passenger rail
network requires a long-term commitment at both the Federal and State
levels. The President has jump-started the process with $2 billion
provided by the Department of Transportation (DOT) Appropriations Act
of 2010 (FY10 Appropriations), $8 billion provided by the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), $90 million provided by the DOT
Appropriations Act of 2009 (FY09 Appropriations), and approximately
$1.8 million remaining funds from the Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 (FY08
Appropriations). Additional or future funding for high-speed intercity
passenger rail may come from a variety of sources, including annual
appropriations, one-time appropriations, redistribution of previously
allocated or obligated funds, or distribution of residual funding from
previous sources.
    The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) allocates funds to
applicants with plans or programs that align with the President's key
strategic transportation goals: creating safe and efficient
transportation choices, building a foundation for economic
competitiveness, promoting energy efficiency and environmental quality,
and supporting interconnected livable communities. Grants are being
administered for the following types of projects:
     Service Development Programs--Aimed at new high-speed rail
corridor services or substantial upgrades to existing corridor
services. Grants are intended to fund a set of inter-related projects
that constitute a phase (or geographic section) of a long-range
corridor plan.
     Individual Projects--Aimed at discrete capital projects
that will result in service benefits or other tangible improvements on
a corridor. These projects include completion of preliminary
engineering (PE), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documentation, final design (FD), and construction, which can include
equipment procurements to provide improved service and modernized
fleets throughout the country
     Planning Projects--Aimed at helping to establish a
pipeline of future construction projects and corridor development
programs by completing Service Development Plans and service-level
environmental analysis for corridors that are at an earlier stage of
the development process, as well as State Rail Plans.
    As the President outlined in his March 20, 2009 memorandum,
``Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds,'' implementing
agencies are to ``develop transparent, merit-based selection criteria
that will guide their available discretion in committing, obligating,
or expending funds under the Recovery Act.'' In order to achieve this
goal, FRA created an application process that contains clear selection
criteria and evaluation procedures.

The Application Process

    In essence, the application process is grounded on three key
principles: (1) promoting collaboration and shared responsibility among
the Federal Government and States, groups of States within corridor
regions, and governments, railroads and other private entities; (2)
managing, rather than eliminating, risk through program management
structure, controls and procedures that permit prudent but effective
investments; and (3) ensuring early success while building a
sustainable program to meet near-term economic recovery goals while
developing public consensus for a long-term program. FRA has issued
interim program guidance as well as detailed instructions to clearly
explain the application process.
    The applications include the standard items, such as the SF 424,
all ARRA-relevant forms, and other necessary and relevant technical
documents that are project-specific and voluntary.
    In order to determine eligibility for funds, FRA must solicit
applications and collect information from parties interested in
obtaining and utilizing these funds for eligible projects.
    Following allocation of funds to applicants, FRA must collect
information from recipients in the form of various required reports in
order to effectively monitor and track the progress of all funded
projects. This process consists of:
     Tracking project activities and progress against the
approved milestones in the Statement of Work through quarterly
submission of the FRA Quarterly Progress Report.
     Comparing the rate of a project's actual expenditures to
the planned amounts in the approved project budget through the
quarterly submission of the Federal Financial Report (SF-425).
     Tracking cumulative funds and job creation through the
quarterly submission of the ARRA 1512(c) Report for ARRA recipients.
     Capturing the cumulative activities and achievements of
the project, with respect to objectives and milestones, through the
one-time submission of the Final Performance Report.
    This collection of information is necessary in order to comply with
the funding agreements outlined in the Notice of Grant Agreement and,
for ARRA recipients, satisfy legal obligations identified in Section
1501(c).
    Form Number(s): FRA F 6180.132, FRA F 6180.133, FRA F 6180.134, FRA
F 6180.135, FRA F 6180.138, FRA F 6180.139, SF-425.
    Affected Public: States and local governments, government sponsored
authorities and corporations, railroads.

                            Reporting Burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Total No. of       Total burden
     Burden time per response             response             hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 hours--Service Development       80--Applications....           2,560
 Programs.
32 hours--PE/NEPA Projects........  122--Applications...           3,904
32 hours--FD/Construction Projects  211--Applications...           6,752
32 hours--Planning Projects.......  70--Applications....           2,240
32 hours--Multi-State Planning      4--Applications.....             128
 Projects.
2--Financial Report (SF-425)......  150--Grants.........           1,200
1--Quarterly Progress Report......  150--Grants.........             600
20--Final Performance Report......  150--Grants.........           3,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Responses: 937.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 20,384 hours.
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b),
1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA informs all interested parties that it may not
conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 1, 2012.
Michael Logue,
Associate Administrator for Administration, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-19177 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: July 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 127)]
[Notices]
[Page 37526]
[DOCID:fr01jy08-88]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Advisory Circulars: Extended Operations (ETOPS) and Polar
Operations, AC 121-42B and Extended Operations (ETOPS) and Operations
in the North Polar Area, AC 135-42

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of advisory circulars.

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

SUMMARY: The issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 121-42B, Extended
Operations (ETOPS) and Polar Operations, provides certificate holders
with guidance for obtaining operational approval to conduct ETOPS under
14 CFR part 121.
    The issuance of AC 135-42, Extended Operations (ETOPS) and
Operations in the North Polar Area, provides certificate holders with
guidance for obtaining operational approval to conduct Extended
Operations (ETOPS) under 14 CFR part 135.

DATES: Advisory Circular No. 120-42B was issued on June 18, 2008.
Advisory Circular No. 135-42 was issued on June 12, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Ryan, Aviation Safety Inspector,
Air Carrier Operations, AFS-220, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone number: (202)
267-8166. A copy of the final AC may be obtained by accessing the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

AC No. 121-42B, Extended Operations (ETOPS) and Polar Operations

    This AC concerns those certificate holders applying for approval to
conduct Extended Operations (ETOPS) under Sec.  121.161, as well as
those certificate holders applying for approval to conduct flights
where a portion of which traverse either the North or South Polar
Areas, as defined in Sec.  121.7. This AC also provides guidance in
resolving operational issues to certificate holders currently
conducting such operations.

AC No. 135-42, Extended Operations (ETOPS) and North Polar Area

    This AC provides certificate holders guidance for obtaining
operational approval to conduct Extended Operations (ETOPS) under Sec.
135.364. Operations under part 135 with multi-engine powered airplanes
may be authorized over a route that contains a point farther than 180
minutes flying time, but no more than 240 minutes flying time, from an
airport meeting the requirements of Sec. Sec.  135.385, 135.393, and
135.219 at an approved one-engine inoperative cruise speed (see 14 CFR
part 135 and Appendix 1 of part 135 for definition of one-engine
inoperative cruise speed) under standard conditions in still air. This
AC also provides guidance for obtaining authorization under Sec.
135.98 to conduct operations in the North Polar Area.

Discussion

    Interested parties were given the opportunity to review and comment
on the draft ACs during the proposal and development phases. A notice
of availability and request for comments was published in the Federal
Register on September 17, 2008, part 121 (72 FR 53044) and part 135 (72
FR 53078). A summary of the comments and the FAA's responses may be
obtained by accessing the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/
nprm.htm and at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-1999-6717.
A copy of the final AC may be obtained by accessing the FAA's Web page
at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm.htm.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 20, 2008.
John Allen,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS-2.
[FR Doc. E8-14879 Filed 6-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22367-22369]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10213]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0293]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Village of Waterloo Memorial Day Fireworks Display;
Seneca-Cayuga Canal, Waterloo, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 280-foot radius of the launch site located
near West Huff Street, Waterloo, NY. This safety zone is intended to
restrict vessels from portions of the Seneca-Cayuga Canal during the
Village of Waterloo Memorial Day fireworks display. The safety zone is
necessary to protect mariners and vessels from potential hazards
associated with a fireworks display. Entry of vessels of persons into
this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain
of the Port Buffalo or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:15 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on May
25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0293 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Sean Dolan, Chief Waterways Management Division, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the event sponsor did not submit
notice to the Coast Guard with sufficient time remaining before the
event to publish an NPRM. Delaying the effective date of this rule to
wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable and contrary to
the public interest by inhibiting the Coast Guard's ability to protect
spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with a fireworks
display.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30-day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish safety zones under 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C.
1231); 33 CFR

1.05-1; 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a
fireworks display presents significant risks to the public safety and
property. Such hazards include premature and accidental detonations,
dangerous projectiles, and falling or burning debris. This rule is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone prior to, during, and
immediately after the fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:15 p.m. through 10:45
p.m. on May 25, 2019 with a rain date of May 26, 2019. The safety zone
will cover all navigable waters of the Seneca-Cayuga Canal; Waterloo,
NY contained within a 280-foot radius of: 42[deg]54'1.45'' N,
076[deg]51'59.55'' W.
    The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the
fireworks event takes place. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring with
the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion
that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate
that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere
with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant
or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy
issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small
and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has
been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions
on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be
minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit
through the safety zone when permitted by the COTP.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule
establishes a temporary safety zone. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental
Consideration (REC)

supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0293 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0293  Safety Zone; Village of Waterloo Memorial Day
Fireworks Display; Seneca-Cayuga Canal, Waterloo, NY.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of the
Seneca-Cayuga Canal; Waterloo, NY contained within a 280-foot radius
of: 43[deg]27'36.58'' N, 076[deg]30'43.87'' W.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9:15
p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on May 25, 2019 with a rain date of May 26,
2019.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo
or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16 or alternatively they may contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo
via landline at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given permission to
enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions
given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene
representative.

    Dated: April 30, 2019.
Joseph S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2019-10213 Filed 5-16-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Reid Clontz Jr<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
07/07/2006 10:23 AM

To:  Michael Samulski/AA/USEPA/US@EPA

cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Subject:  Temperature and Ethanol Questions

Mike,

I have attached a couple of files with information on the questions you
asked recently.  The ethanol data has not been written up in a report so
additional explanation of some of the slides would probably be helpful.

For the question about effect of temperatures on marine emissions
control, I do not think that the canister data I have forwarded really
applies.  The data was generated with a constant purge volume of 300 bed
volumes and constant vapor generation during loading of 40 g/hr.  The
ambient temperature where the canister was stored was varied for the
study.  This work was done in support of making a decision about
placement of canisters on vehicles.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Reid Clontz

MeadWestvaco Specialty Chemicals

Washington Street, Sta. 57

Covington, VA  24426

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>