Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 66283 

• 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable 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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by January 6, 2014. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: October 21, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.1892 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1892 Determination of attainment. 

* * * * * 

(e) Based upon EPA’s review of the air 

quality data for the 3-year period 2010 

to 2012, EPA determined that the 

Bellefontaine, OH lead nonattainment 

areas attained the 2008 Lead National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This clean data 

determination suspends the 

requirements for this area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, associated 

reasonably available control measures, a 

reasonable further progress plan, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the standard for as long as this area 

continues to meet the 2008 lead 

NAAQS. 

[FR Doc. 2013–26358 Filed 11–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005–0011; FRL–9902– 

29–Region 4] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Geiger (C&M Oil) Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 4 is publishing a 

direct final Notice of Deletion of the 

Geiger (C&M Oil), Superfund Site (Site), 

located in Hollywood, Charleston 

County, South Carolina, 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 

South Carolina, through the South 

Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SCDHEC), 

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 January 6, 2014 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

December 5, 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–2005–0011; by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Joyner.William@EPA.gov 

and/or Miller.Angela@EPA.gov. 

• Fax: (404) 562–8788 Attention: 

William Joyner. 

• Mail: William Joyner, Remedial 

Project Manager, Superfund Remedial 

Section A, Superfund Remedial and Site 

Evaluation Branch, Superfund Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, GA 30303–8960. 

• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth 

Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303– 

8960. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional EPA Office is 

open for business Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

Federal Holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2005– 

0011. 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
66284 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 statue. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in the 

hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at: 

Regional Site Information Repository, 

U.S. EPA Record Center, Attn: Ms. Anita 

Davis, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 

Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 

30303–8960. 

Hours of Operation (by appointment 

only): 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday 

through Friday. Local Document 

Repository, St. Paul’s Parish Library, 

5151 Town Council Drive, Hollywood, 

SC 29449. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Joyner, Remedial Project 

Manager, Superfund Remedial, Section 

A; Superfund Remedial and Site 

Evaluation Branch, Superfund Division; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4; 61 Forsyth Street SW.; 

Atlanta, GA 30303–8960, Telephone, or 

VM (404) 562–8795, Electronic mail: 

Joyner.William@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

V. Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 4 is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Deletion of the Geiger 

(C&M Oil) Superfund Site (Site), from 

the National Priorities List (NPL). The 

NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR 

part 300, which is the Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. 

EPA maintains the NPL as the list of 

sites that appear to present a significant 

risk to public health, welfare, or the 

environment. Sites on the NPL may be 

the subject of remedial actions financed 

by the Hazardous Substance Superfund 

(Fund). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of 

the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL 

remain eligible for Fund-financed 

remedial actions if future conditions 

warrant such actions. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective January 6, 2014 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by December 5, 2013. Along with this 

direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is 

co-publishing a Notice of Intent to 

Delete in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section 

of the Federal Register. If adverse 

comments are received within the 30- 

day public comment period on this 

deletion action, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

Notice of Deletion before the effective 

date of the deletion, and the deletion 

will not take effect. EPA will, as 

appropriate, prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

Notice of Intent to Delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for deleting sites from the 

NPL. Section III discusses procedures 

that EPA is using for this action. Section 

IV discusses the Geiger (C&M Oil) 

Superfund Site and demonstrates how it 

meets the deletion criteria. Section V 

discusses EPA’s action to delete the Site 

from the NPL unless adverse comments 

are received during the public comment 

period. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

The NCP establishes the criteria that 

EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), 

sites may be deleted from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate. In making such a 

determination pursuant to 40 CFR 

300.425(e), EPA will consider, in 

consultation with the state, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

i. Responsible parties or other persons 

have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required; 

ii. all appropriate Fund-financed 

response under CERCLA has been 

implemented, and no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate; or 

iii. the remedial investigation has 

shown that the release poses no 

significant threat to public health or the 

environment and, therefore, the taking 

of remedial measures is not appropriate. 

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) 

and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year 

reviews to ensure the continued 

protectiveness of remedial actions 

where hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants remain at a site above 

levels that allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts 

such five-year reviews even if a site is 

deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate 

further action to ensure continued 

protectiveness at a deleted site if new 

information becomes available that 

indicates it is appropriate. Whenever 

there is a significant release from a site 

deleted from the NPL, the deleted site 

may be restored to the NPL without 

application of the hazard ranking 

system. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to 

deletion of the Site: 

(1) EPA consulted with the state of 

South Carolina 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 South 

Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control, 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, 

Post and Courier. The newspaper notice 

announces the 30-day public comment 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 66285 

period concerning the Notice of Intent 

to Delete the Site from the NPL. 

(4) EPA placed copies of documents 

supporting the proposed deletion in the 

deletion docket and made these items 

available for public inspection and 

copying at the Site information 

repositories identified above. 

(5) If adverse comments are received 

within the 30-day public comment 

period on this deletion action, EPA will 

publish a timely notice of withdrawal of 

this direct final Notice of Deletion 

before its effective date and will prepare 

a response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the Notice of Intent to Delete and the 

comments already received. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does 

not itself create, alter, or revoke any 

individual’s rights or obligations. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not 

in any way alter EPA’s right to take 

enforcement actions, as appropriate. 

The NPL is designed primarily for 

informational purposes and to assist 

EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) 

of the NCP states that the deletion of a 

site from the NPL does not preclude 

eligibility for future response actions, 

should future conditions warrant such 

actions. 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

The following information provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site 

from the NPL: 

Site Background 

The Geiger (C&M Oil) Site (EPA 

CERCLIS Identification Number 

SCD980711279) is located 

approximately 10 miles west of the city 

of Charleston, South Carolina, along 

Highway 162. The town of Hollywood is 

located approximately 4 miles west of 

the site. The Site consist of an affected 

area that is approximately 1.5 acres in 

size, triangular in shape and is bound 

on two sides by ponds, and on the third 

side by a small rise. The area around the 

Site is sparsely populated with 

approximately ten residences located 

west and southwest of the site. Another 

10 residences are located to the east and 

north east with several small businesses 

within (0.5) miles of the site along 

Highway 162. Between 1969 and 1971, 

eight unlined lagoons, each 

approximately 1 foot deep for a 

combined area of 1.5 acres were 

constructed for the purpose of holding 

waste oil in connection with an 

incineration process. 

In late 1971, in response to 

complaints from area residents, South 

Carolina Pollution Control Agency 

(SCPCA) ordered the stoppage of all 

incineration and waste deposition 

activities at the Site and the owner was 

directed to take action to prevent the 

spillage, leakage, or seepage of oil from 

the Site. In April 1974, a complaint was 

filed by a nearby property owner with 

the Charleston County Health 

Department (CCHD) about oil 

overflowing from the lagoons on the 

Site. CCHD investigated the Site and 

ordered the Site closed because of 

evidence of oil dumping and 

overflowing oil. C&M Oil Distributors, 

Inc. then purchased all reclaimable oil 

on the Site and submitted recovery 

plans to SCDHEC, formerly SCPCA, but 

reportedly received no response to their 

plans. In December 1979, SCDHEC 

requested that the company provide 

information on their intentions to clean 

up the Site. C&M Oil Distributors, Inc. 

stated in January 1980 that they were 

unable to recover the waste oil and were 

not obligated to clean up the Site. 

Investigations of Site activities revealed 

evidence of oil dumping and oil 

overflowing from lagoons on site. The 

facility was ordered to stop all 

incineration and waste disposition 

activities at the site and action be taken 

to prevent spillage, leakage, and seepage 

of oil from the Site. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

Samples collected during the 

remedial investigation provide 

sufficient data to characterize the Site. 

Results of laboratory analysis revealed 

the presence of inorganic contaminants 

(chromium, mercury and lead) in the 

soil in concentrations exceeding the 

common ranges for these metals in soils. 

The highest concentrations were found 

in the oil stained area confirming that 

this area is the contaminant source. The 

laboratory found no organic 

contaminants in the soil samples taken 

from the oil stained area. The laboratory 

found several organics in the shallow 

and medium on site monitor well 

samples. Elevated levels of metals and 

organics were found in samples taken 

from the oil stained area and analyzed 

by the Contract Laboratory Program 

(CLP) . Some of these same organics 

were found in the shallow on-site 

monitor well. The laboratory samples of 

the surface waters were free of any 

organic contamination. Evidence of 

polychlorinated biphenyl-1242 (PCB– 

1242) and petroleum products was 

found in several surface water samples 

by the CLP laboratory. Private wells to 

the north, east and southwest of the site 

were found to be free of contamination. 

Ground water contamination appears to 

be limited to the oil stained area. Based 

on the local laboratory results, ground 

water contamination has not moved 

from the Site. The results from the CLP 

sample analysis support these 

conclusions. Based on air monitoring 

during the RI, organic air contamination 

was not found to be a problem. The final 

feasibility study dated July 1987 

provided an in-depth summary and 

discussion of site sampling activities, 

and an analysis of remedial alternatives. 

The feasibility study provided an 

analysis of extraction (soil) flushing, 

solidification/stabilization, attenuation, 

immobilization, incineration, capping, 

vegetative cover, excavation and offsite 

disposal, partial excavation with onsite 

disposal, onsite containment/

encapsulation and no action remedial 

alternatives. 

Selected Remedy 

A Record of Decision (ROD) was 

signed in June 1987, and two ROD 

amendments (AROD) were signed; one 

in July 1993 and the second in 

September 1998. The purpose of the 

remedial action at the Site was to 

mitigate and minimize contamination in 

the soils and ground water and to 

reduce potential risks to human health 

and the environment. The following 

cleanup objectives were determined 

based on regulatory requirements and 

levels of contamination found at the 

Site: 

• Recovering contaminated ground 

water with on-site treatment and 

discharge to an off-site stream; 

• protecting public health and the 

environment from exposure to 

contaminated on-site soils through 

inhalation, direct contact, and erosion of 

soils into surface waters and wetlands; 

• preventing off-site movement of 

contaminated ground water; and 

• restoring contaminated ground 

water to levels protective of human 

health and the environment. 

The 1987 ROD selected a remedial 

alternative to prevent direct contact 

exposure and inhalation of 

contaminants in the soil, potential 

ingestion of contaminated ground water 

by on-site workers and potential future 

residents; further leaching of 

contaminants to ground water above 

drinking water standards; and potential 

direct contact exposure to 

environmental receptors. The selected 

remedy included: 

• Recovery of contaminated ground 

water with on-site treatment and 

discharge to an off-site stream; 

• on-site thermal treatment of 

excavated soils to remove organic 

contaminants; 

• solidification/stabilization (S/S) of 

thermally-treated soil to reduce mobility 

of metals; 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
66286 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

• review of S/S, during the remedial 

design, to determine if S/S alone would 

achieve remedial action goals; and 

• development of soil cleanup goals 

during the remedial design. 

The selected remedy established 

cleanup goals for contaminants in the 

ground water based on drinking water 

standards. The selected remedy 

eliminated the principal threat posed to 

human health and the environment by 

preventing further migration of 

contaminants to the ground water and 

by remediating ground water to drinking 

water standards. The 1987 ROD 

indicated that no elevated levels of 

contaminants were found in the pond 

on-site. Soil and ground water were 

found to be contaminated with the 

contaminants of concern (COCs) listed 

in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—GROUND WATER AND SOIL

CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

Ground water and soil contaminants 

of concern 

Benzo (a) pyrene. 

Benzo (a) anthracene. 

Benzo (b and/or k) fluoranthene. 

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (Aroclor 

1254). 

Benzene. 

Trans-1,2-dichloroethylene. 

Chromium. 

Lead. 

Toluene. 

1,2-Dichlorobenzene. 

1,1-Dichloroethane. 

Treatability studies conducted during 

the remedial design determined that S/ 

S alone would remediate contaminated 

soils. Based on these studies, the ROD 

was amended on July 13, 1993 to state 

that only S/S would be conducted, 

thermal treatment would not be needed. 

EPA issued another ROD amendment on 

September 9, 1998, changing the ground 

water remedy from pump and treat to 

monitored natural attenuation (MNA) 

and revising the ground water COCs to 

only include cadmium and lead, with 

respective cleanup goals of 5mg/L and 

15mg/L. Soil leachate criteria were 

established in the 1993 AROD to protect 

the ground water. 

Response Actions 

In February 1992, EPA entered into a 

cooperative agreement with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to 

perform the remedial design/remedial 

action (RD/RA). After the final design 

was completed, USACE awarded the RA 

contract to McLaren/Hart 

Environmental Engineering Corporation 

(McLaren/Hart) for solidification/

stabilization of Site soils. McLaren/Hart 

mobilized to the field for full-scale soil 

treatment on January 16, 1994. Soil 

treatment was completed on April 23, 

1994 followed by placement of a gravel 

cap over the treated soil, which was 

completed on August 5, 1994. The prefinal inspection, conducted on August 

9, 1994, did not discover any significant 

outstanding items and therefore served 

as the final inspection. Both the site’s 

Final Construction Report and the 

Interim Remedial Action Report were 

approved by EPA and SCDHEC on 

September 29, 1997. Quality control 

analytical sampling of the treated soil 

was conducted throughout the 

solidification activities. The quality 

assurance/quality control program was 

in conformance with EPA and State 

standards; therefore, EPA and the State 

determined that all analytical results 

were accurate to the degree needed to 

assure satisfactory execution of the RA 

and are consistent with the ROD and the 

RD plans and specifications. 

Cleanup Goals 

Site soils have been treated to prevent 

further leaching of contamination into 

the ground water. Additional sampling 

conducted by EPA showed only one 

remaining ground water COC that was 

consistently detected above drinking 

water standards in two small, localized 

areas, one of which was near drinking 

water standards. As a result of these soil 

and ground water findings, EPA issued 

an additional AROD on September 9, 

1998, changing the ground water 

remedy from pump and treat, which 

was never implemented, to MNA. The 

Preliminary Close-out Report 

(September 14, 1998), and the Operation 

and Maintenance (O&M) Plan 

(September 1998) were approved by 

EPA and SCDHEC. The Preliminary 

Close-out Report found that there was 

no definable contaminant plume on site. 

In January of 2013, the EPA conducted 

a scientific evaluation of the durability 

and leachability of the monolith at the 

Site. The objective of the report was to 

determine the durability of the S/S 

wastes (the monolith) based on physical 

measurements (moisture content, bulk 

and dry density, permeability, wet/dry 

durability). The evaluation indicates 

that the monolith has remained stable in 

the environment during the 20 year 

period since completion of the remedial 

action. No evidence indicating any 

adverse change in physical condition 

was observed. Some evidence of the 

capacity for leaching of cement binder 

and COCs from the monolith was 

indicated; however, the leaching would 

be expected to be very minor and not 

likely indicative of a possibly adverse 

condition, either presently or long-term, 

or with regard to groundwater 

contamination. Testing and analyses 

supports the conclusion that COCs 

remain highly bound within the 

monolith and that leaching of these 

COCs is unlikely to adversely impact 

the surrounding soil and/or 

groundwater environment under current 

site conditions. 

Operation and Maintenance 

The 1998 AROD reported that longterm O&M of the remedy was not 

required. There were no O&M costs 

associated with the Site since the 2004 

FYR. The declaration of covenants and 

restrictions on the property was made 

and entered into on October 11, 2001, 

by Pile Drivers, Inc, a South Carolina 

Corporation. Pile Drivers is the owner of 

the property in Charleston County, 

South Carolina, more specifically 

described in the Title of Real Estate 

record in the book W127 at page 390 in 

the Charleston County RMC Office. The 

declaration of covenants and restrictions 

to restrict use of the site soils and 

ground water states the following: ‘‘Pile 

Drivers hereby covenants for itself, its 

successors and assigns, that the Soil 

Treatment Area shall not be used for 

residential or agricultural purposes; 

prohibit activities, include but are not 

limited to: Filling; drilling; excavation; 

anchoring; removal of top soil, rock, or 

minerals; plowing; planting; cultivation 

(other than maintenance of the ground 

cover); and change of the topography in 

any manner.’’ 

Five-Year Review 

The remedy at the Geiger (C & M Oil) 

Site currently protects human health 

and the environment because exposure 

pathways that could result in 

unacceptable risks are being controlled. 

Soils have been cleaned up to industrial 

standards using S/S, the property is 

currently being used for industrial 

purposes, and ground water sampling 

results over multiple years led to 

decommissioning 27 monitoring wells. 

Five-year reviews (FYR) are statutorily 

required as long as waste is left on site 

that does not allow for unrestricted use 

and unlimited exposure. Three FYRs 

have already been completed and the 

next FYR is planned for FY 2014. 

Community Involvement 

On August 15, 2008, a public notice 

was published in the Post and Courier 

Announcing the commencement of the 

third FYR process for the Geiger site, 

providing contact information for EPA 

site staff, and inviting community 

participation. Copies of this document 

are available in the Site’s public 

repository: St. Paul’s Parish Library, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 214 / Tuesday, November 5, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 66287 

5151 Town Council Drive, Hollywood, 

SC 29449, where additional information 

about the Site can be found in CD 

format. Community involvement 

activities associated with the deletion 

will consist of issuing a deletion fact 

sheet, publishing a public notice in the 

local newspaper, updating the 

information repository, and providing 

the public an opportunity to comment. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states 

that a site may be deleted from the NPL 

when no further response action is 

appropriate. The implemented remedy 

achieves the degree of cleanup specified 

in the ROD and ROD Amendments for 

all pathways of exposure. All selected 

remedial action objectives and clean-up 

goals are consistent with agency policy 

and guidance. EPA, in consultation with 

the State of South Carolina, has 

determined that all required response 

actions have been implemented and no 

further response action by the 

responsible parties is appropriate. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State of South Carolina through the 

South Carolina Department of Health 

and Environmental Control has 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than operation, maintenance, 

monitoring and five-year reviews have 

been completed. Therefore, EPA is 

deleting the Site from the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective January 6, 2014 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by December 5, 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: September 23, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

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 

■ 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] 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing ‘‘Geiger (C&M 

Oil)’’, ‘‘Rantoules, South Carolina’’. 

[FR Doc. 2013–26512 Filed 11–4–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[WT Docket No. 12–357; FCC 13–88] 

H Block Report and Order 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) announces that the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved, in response to an emergency 

request, for a period of six months, the 

information collection on FCC Form 175 

implementing new rule section 

1.2105(a)(2)(xii) adopted by the 

Commission in the Service Rules for 

Advanced Wireless Services H Block— 

Implementing Section 6401 of the 

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 

Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 

1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz 

Bands Report and Order (Report and 

Order), FCC 13–88. This notice is 

consistent with the Report and Order, 

which stated that the rule would 

become effective upon Commission 

publication of a document in the 

Federal Register announcing its 

approval by OMB. 

DATES: The rule amending 47 CFR 

1.2105(a)(2)(xii), published at 78 FR 

50214, August 16, 2013, is effective 

November 5, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cathy Williams, Federal 

Communications Commission, at (202) 

418–2918, or email: Cathy.Williams@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document announces that, on 

September 17, 2013, OMB approved, in 

response to an emergency request, for a 

period of six months, a revision to the 

previously-approved information 

collection on FCC Form 175 to 

implement new section 1.2105(a)(2)(xii) 

of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.2105(a)(2)(xii), adopted in the Report 

and Order, FCC 13–88, 78 FR 50214, 

August 16, 2013. The OMB Control 

Number is 3060–0600. The Commission 

publishes this notice as an 

announcement of the effective date of 

§ 1.2105(a)(2)(xii). 

Synopsis 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), 

the Commission is notifying the public 

that it received OMB approval on 

September 17, 2013, for the revised 

information collection required by a 

modification to 47 CFR 1.2105 (a)(2). 

Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not 

conduct or sponsor a collection of 

information unless it displays a current, 

valid OMB Control Number. 

No person shall be subject to any 

penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act that does not 

display a current, valid OMB Control 

Number. The OMB Control Number is 

3060–0600. The foregoing notice is 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13, 

October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

The total annual reporting burdens 

and costs for the respondents are as 

follows: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–0600. 

OMB Approval Date: September 17, 

2013. 

OMB Expiration Date: March 14, 

2014. 

Title: Application to Participate in an 

FCC Auction, FCC Form 175. 

Form Number: FCC Form 175. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities; not-for-profit institutions; 

State, Local or Tribal Governments. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 500 per year (estimated 

average for 3 years for all respondents 

under the previously-approved 

collection on FCC Form 175), with an 

estimated 350 of such respondents 

required to respond to the revised 

collection. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1.5 

hours. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES