27192 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the 

following address: Roberto Morales, 

OAQPS Document Control Officer 

(C404–02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0064. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document and other related 

information? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this notice 

will also be available on the World 

Wide Web (WWW). Following signature 

by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this 

notice will be posted in the regulations 

and standards section of our NSR home 

page located at http://www.epa.gov/nsr. 

Dated: May 10, 2010. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and 

Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11578 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1999–0006; FRL–9150–3] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Ruston Foundry 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 

Ruston Foundry Superfund Site (Site), 

located in Alexandria, Rapides Parish, 

Louisiana, 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 

Louisiana, through the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(LDEQ), because EPA has determined 

that all appropriate response actions 

under CERCLA have been completed. 

However, this deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: This direct final deletion is 

effective July 13, 2010 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by June 14, 

2010. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final deletion in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

deletion will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1999–0006, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, 

Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA 

Region 6 coltrain.katrina@epa.gov. 

• Fax: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, 

Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA 

Region 6 (6SF–RL) 214–665–6660. 

• Mail: Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, 

Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA 

Region 6 (6SF–RL), 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, TX 75202–2733. 

• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. Instructions: Direct your 

comments to Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1999–0006. EPA’s policy is that 

all comments received will be included 

in the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain 

other material, such as copyrighted 

material, will be publicly available only 

in the hard copy. Publicly available 

docket materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

U.S. EPA Region 6 Library, 7th Floor, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733, (214) 665–6424; 

Rapides Parish Public Library, 411 

Washington Street, Alexandria, 

Louisiana 71301, (318) 442–1840; 

Louisiana Department of Environmental 

Quality Public Records Center, Galvez 

Building Room 127, 602 N. Fifth Street, 

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802, (225) 

219–3168, E-mail: publicrecords@la.gov, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 27193 

Web page: http:// 

www.deq.louisiana.gov/pubrecords. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katrina Higgins-Coltrain, Remedial 

Project Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA 

Region 6 (6SF–RL), 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Dallas, TX 75202–2733, (214) 665–8143 

or 1–800–533–3508 

(coltrain.katrina@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 6 is publishing this direct 

final Notice of Deletion of the Ruston 

Foundry Superfund Site (Site), from the 

NPL. The NPL constitutes Appendix B 

of 40 CFR part 300, which is the NCP, 

which EPA promulgated pursuant to 

section 105 of 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. As described in 

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted 

from the NPL remain eligible for Fundfinanced remedial actions if future 

conditions warrant such actions. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, this 

action will be effective July 13, 2010, 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by June 14, 2010. Along with this direct 

final Notice of Deletion, EPA is copublishing 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 Ruston Foundry 

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. Based on confirmation sample 

results, hazardous substances above 

health based levels have been removed 

from the Ruston Foundry Superfund 

Site, which allows for unlimited use 

and unrestricted exposure of the Site 

property. Therefore, neither a policy nor 

a statutory review will be necessary for 

the Site to ensure that the remedy is, or 

will be, protective of human health and 

the environment. Pursuant to CERCLA 

section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), and as 

provided in the current guidance on 

Five-Year Reviews: EPA 540–R–01–007, 

OSWER No. 9355.7–03B–P, 

Comprehensive Five-Year Review 

Guidance, June 2001, EPA will not need 

to conduct a statutory five-year review 

for the Site. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to 

deletion of the Site: 

(1) EPA consulted with the state of 

Louisiana, through the LDEQ, 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 LDEQ, 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 the major local newspaper, 

Alexandria Town Talk. The newspaper 

notice announces the 30-day public 

comment period concerning the Notice 

of Intent to Delete the Site from the 

NPL. 

(4) The EPA placed copies of 

documents supporting the proposed 

deletion in the deletion docket and 

made these items available for public 

inspection and copying at the Site 

information repositories identified 

above. 

(5) If adverse comments are received 

within the 30-day public comment 

period on this deletion action, EPA will 

publish a timely notice of withdrawal of 

this direct final Notice of Deletion 

before its effective date and will prepare 

a response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the Notice of Intent to Delete and the 

comments already received. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does 

not itself create, alter, or revoke any 

individual’s rights or obligations. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not 

in any way alter EPA’s right to take 

enforcement actions, as appropriate. 

The NPL is designed primarily for 

informational purposes and to assist 

EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) 

of the NCP states that the deletion of a 

site from the NPL does not preclude 

eligibility for future response actions, 

should future conditions warrant such 

actions. 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

The following information provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site 

from the NPL: 

Site Background and History 

Ruston Foundry operated from 1908 

until 1985. From the beginning of 

operation until October 1983, it was 

operated under the name Ruston 

Foundry and Machine Shops, Ltd and 

manufactured, bought, and sold 

hardware, articles of tin, copper, and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
27194 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

sheet iron, agricultural implements, 

castings of all kinds, furniture and other 

articles of wood; manufactured, 

repaired, bought, and sold locomotives, 

engines, machinery, and all kinds of 

railroad and mill supplies; and 

conducted general foundry and 

machinery operations. By the mid1950s, Ruston Foundry and Machine 

Shops, Ltd., had added boiler, dragline, 

sugar mill, paper mill, saw mill, and oil 

refinery repairs; casting services for 

‘‘grey iron and brass,’’ including 

manhole covers and drainage grates; 

welding and ‘‘metalizing’’; steel 

fabrication.; and the distribution of 

‘‘Trussless Steel Wonder Buildings’’ to 

their business operations. In 1983, the 

facility was reincorporated and began 

operating under the name Ruston 

Foundry and Machine Shops, Inc. In 

November 1990, the Ruston Foundry 

and Machine Shops, Inc. corporation 

charter was revoked by the Louisiana 

Secretary of State for failure to file its 

corporate annual report. 

The Ruston Foundry Superfund Site 

is located in an urban area with mixed 

development within the city limits of 

Alexandria, Louisiana. The Site 

encompasses approximately 6.6 acres, 

and prior to remedial action consisted 

primarily of dilapidated structures and 

building foundations overgrown with 

thick brush. The Site is bordered by a 

series of abandoned railroad tracks to 

the west, Chatlin Lake Canal to the 

northeast and east, and Mill Street Ditch 

to the south and southeast. Residential 

property is located to the north, south, 

and east of the Site. Historical and 

active industrialized areas lie further 

west and north of the Site. 

During the 1990s, LDEQ and EPA 

conducted a series of Site investigations. 

On January 19, 1999 (64 FR 2950), the 

Site was proposed to the NPL, and on 

May 10, 1999 (64 FR 24949), EPA 

formally announced the addition of the 

Site to the NPL in the Federal Register. 

The EPA Site identification number is 

LAD985185107. 

Foundry operations resulted in metals 

contaminated waste which was 

dispersed throughout the property as fill 

material. As a result of this disposal 

activity, foundry-derived process wastes 

(slag, foundry sand piles, metal scrap, 

and castings) covered most of the Site 

and had contaminated the soil. Also 

present at the Site was an underground 

storage tank (UST) with unknown 

contents, asbestos containing material 

(ACM), and slag waste identified as a 

characteristic hazardous waste because 

it exceeded toxicity characteristic 

leaching procedure (TCLP) criteria for 

lead. Elevated concentrations of lead, 

and organic compounds benzene, 

ethylbenzene, toluene, m-xylene, and 

oxylene were detected in samples 

collected from the sludge materials 

contained in drums. A Time-Critical 

Removal Action was performed on 

August 11, 1999, to transport and 

dispose of the drums offsite. 

Through the Reuse Grant awarded by 

the Government in September 2000, the 

city of Alexandria developed a future 

reuse plan. It was anticipated that the 

selected remedy would provide 

community revitalization impacts 

because the implemented remedy would 

not result in hazardous substances, 

pollutants, or contaminants remaining 

onsite above levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure. Therefore, five-year reviews, 

operation and maintenance, and 

institutional controls restricting Site use 

or access would not be required for this 

remedial action. This remedy would be 

compatible with Alexandria’s Site reuse 

plan and allow for restoration of the Site 

to beneficial uses. 

In support of the city’s redevelopment 

plan, Kansas City Southern Railway 

(KCS), the potentially responsible party 

(PRP), has provided access to the 30- 

acre property adjacent to the Site with 

the intention of deeding the property to 

the city once the city has completed its 

investigation. On February 17, 2009, the 

city completed a Phase 1 investigation 

of this property. The city applied for 

and was granted a Brownfields Grant 

related to the 30-acre property on 

September 22, 2008. This grant will be 

used to assist with costs related to 

additional investigations of the 30-acre 

property and support future 

redevelopment activities for the area. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study 

The field investigation was 

considered a comprehensive approach 

that addressed the Site as one operable 

unit. The field activities included 

surface soil grid sampling, sampling of 

soil/sediment on transects across the 

canals, sampling of waste piles, air 

monitoring, sampling of surface soil hot 

spots, sampling of surface water and 

sediment in the canals, stratigraphic 

profiling with cone penetrometer 

testing, subsurface soil grid sampling 

with direct-push and conventional 

drilling, monitor well installation, 

ground water sampling, and aquifer 

testing. 

Foundry operations resulted in metals 

contaminated waste which was 

dispersed throughout the property as fill 

material. As a result of this disposal 

activity, foundry-derived process wastes 

(slag, foundry sand piles, metal scrap, 

and castings) covered most of the Site 

and had contaminated the soil. When 

present, the material ranged in thickness 

from about 1 inch to about 5 ft in the 

southwest corner of the main Site area. 

Concentrations present in samples taken 

from the permanent ground water 

monitoring wells exceeded the 

screening criteria for one constituent 

[bis(2-ethyhexyl)phthalate], which is a 

common plasticiser used in well 

construction material and a common 

laboratory contaminant. Concentrations 

are most likely associated with Site 

monitoring well installation since the 

facility operated as a metals foundry. 

Currently, public water supply is 

provided to the Site vicinity and is 

expected to be provided onsite in the 

future. Ground water was not identified 

as a media of concern. The majority of 

surface soil samples contained visible 

foundry waste materials and, as a result, 

surface soil samples tended to 

demonstrate the highest concentrations 

of Site-related contaminants of concern. 

Also present at the Site was a UST with 

unknown contents, ACM, and slag 

waste identified as a characteristic 

hazardous waste because it exceeded 

lead TCLP criteria. Through the human 

health and ecological risk assessments, 

the identified contaminated media of 

most concern were surface soil and 

sediment that contain lead and 

antimony, and the exposure routes of 

most concern were direct contact and 

ingestion. Children were found to be the 

most sensitive and vulnerable to the 

effects of lead. 

The EPA determined that it was 

appropriate to apply the presumptive 

remedy for metals in soil based on the 

soil and contaminant characteristics 

found at the Site and guidance provided 

in the directive, Presumptive Remedies 

for Metals-in-Soil Sites (EPA 540–F–98– 

054, OSWER–9355.0–72FS, September 

1999). Following the guidance, the EPA 

has a goal of resource conservation, 

thereby making reclamation/recovery 

the preferred treatment technology for 

metals-in-soil sites. This approach was 

determined to be inappropriate for the 

Site. Slag waste is the primary 

contaminated media/matrix 

encountered throughout the Site, and 

reclamation/recovery is generally not 

effective for treatment of slag waste. The 

concentration of metals in the slag is too 

low to warrant reclamation and 

recovery, and the physical and chemical 

nature of the slag material that binds the 

metals would make reclamation or 

recovery of metal from the waste 

physically and economically 

impractical. Therefore, the second 

preferred treatment technology 

alternative of immobilization 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 27195 

(solidification/stabilization) was used. 

In addition to the presumptive 

remedies, the Feasibility study 

evaluated a no action alternative, as 

required by the NCP for inclusion as a 

baseline of Site conditions for 

comparison, and an excavation and 

offsite disposal alternative. 

Selected Remedy 

Record of Decision Dated June 24, 2002 

The ROD was signed on June 24, 

2002. The principal threat waste at the 

Site was to be addressed through the 

excavation and offsite disposal of 

contaminated soil and sediment, 

removal and offsite disposal of ACM 

and the UST, and the excavation, 

treatment, and offsite disposal of 

hazardous wastes. 

The remedial action objectives (RAOs) 

for the Site included the following: 

• RAO No. 1—Prevent direct human 

contact (trespassers, adult recreators, 

and child recreators) with surface soils 

and waste piles containing lead at 

concentrations that would result in a 

greater than 5 percent chance that a 

child’s blood lead value would exceed 

10 micrograms per deciliter (μg/dL). 

• RAO No. 2—Prevent direct human 

contact (trespassers, adult recreators, 

and child recreators) with surface soils 

and waste piles containing antimony at 

concentrations which have a hazard 

index greater than 1. 

• RAO No. 3—Prevent leaching and 

migration of lead from surface soils and 

waste piles into the ground water at 

concentrations exceeding 0.015 

milligrams per liter. 

• RAO No. 4—Prevent leaching and 

migration of antimony from surface soils 

and waste piles into the ground water at 

concentrations exceeding 0.006 

milligrams per liter. 

• RAO No. 5—Prevent direct human 

contact with asbestos containing 

material at concentrations greater than 1 

percent by weight. 

• RAO No. 6—Prevent direct contact 

with the underground storage tank, its 

contents, and surrounding contaminated 

soils. 

• RAO No. 7—Prevent direct human 

contact (trespassers, adult recreators, 

and child recreators) with slag pile 

material with toxicity characteristic 

leaching procedure lead concentrations 

greater than 5 milligrams per liter and 

handle as hazardous waste in 

accordance with all applicable federal, 

state, and local regulations. 

• RAO No. 8—Prevent migration of 

contaminants to deeper soils and 

ground water through the former onsite 

water supply well and from the existing 

buildings, slabs, sump, and trash. 

Because there are no Federal or State 

cleanup standards for soil 

contamination, the EPA established the 

RAO cleanup levels (CLs) based on the 

baseline risk assessment to reduce the 

excess noncancer risk associated with 

exposure to contaminated wastes, the 

excess risk of exceeding 10 μg/dL blood 

lead level, and the potential for 

migration of contaminants into the 

ground water. The CL for antimony was 

established as 150 milligrams per 

kilogram (mg/kg), and the CL for lead 

was established as 500 mg/kg. 

The major components of the original 

remedy were: 

1. Stabilization—Approximately 1300 

cubic yards (yd3) of hazardous waste 

would be excavated and stabilized. The 

material would be stabilized until 

sampling verified that it no longer 

exceeded TCLP for lead. After 

verification, the waste would be 

disposed offsite at a Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

regulated Subtitle D facility. 

2. ACM—Materials would be 

consolidated onsite, contained, and 

transported offsite to a disposal facility 

licensed to accept ACM. Methods to 

control airborne dispersion of asbestos 

would be implemented during 

remediation. The estimated total volume 

of material was 22 yd3. 

3. UST—The UST, its contents, and 

the surrounding petroleum wastes 

would be characterized during the 

remedial design to determine whether 

the contents would be cleaned up under 

CERCLA or Oil Pollution Act authority. 

The surrounding polychlorinated 

biphenyl contaminated soils would be 

removed and disposed offsite in 

accordance with federal, state, and local 

regulations. The total volume of tank 

contents was estimated at 5,000 gallons. 

The volume of associated contaminated 

soil was included in the soil/sediment 

estimated volume of 15,000 yd3. 

4. Building debris and water supply 

well—The onsite well would be plugged 

and abandoned in accordance with 

federal, state, and local regulations. 

Portions of the Site would be cleared, 

where necessary, and the existing 

buildings and foundations would be 

demolished, removed and disposed 

offsite. 

5. Soil/sediment—Approximately 

15,000 yd3 of lead and antimony 

contaminated soil and sediment would 

be excavated and disposed offsite in a 

RCRA Subtitle D facility. 

6. Air Monitoring—During remedial 

action, efforts would be made to control 

dust and run-off to limit the amount of 

materials that may migrate to a potential 

receptor. Air monitoring would be 

conducted during times of remediation 

to ensure that control measures are 

working to regulate Site emissions. 

7. Short-term monitoring—Monitoring 

of the surface water and ground water 

during remedial action may be 

necessary to ensure that run-off control 

measures are working. 

Explanation of Significant Differences 

(ESD) Dated September 28, 2004 

The EPA issued the ESD on 

September 28, 2004, to document postROD changes. Post-ROD negotiations 

between EPA and KCS indicated that 

the use of stabilization may not be the 

most efficient and cost effective method 

for addressing the slag waste. In 

addition, post-ROD discussions between 

the city and the community resulted in 

changing the proposed future Site reuse 

from recreational to industrial. Based on 

this information, EPA issued an ESD in 

September 2004 to document future Site 

use as industrial and to include a 

contingency remedy for the hazardous 

waste. 

This new information significantly 

changed a component of the selected 

remedy and added a contingency 

remedy; however, it did not 

fundamentally alter the overall cleanup 

approach, which was stabilization and 

offsite disposal. The change in land use 

required revisions to the risk 

assessment, which in turn revised the 

soil/sediment CLs, the estimated waste 

volume to be addressed, and the 

estimated remedial costs. This change 

also required future operation and 

maintenance (O&M) activities, Five-year 

Reviews, and Institutional Controls 

(ICs). 

The Revised RAOs for the Site 

included: 

• RAO No. 1—Prevent direct human 

contact (pregnant adult woman worker) 

with surface soils and waste piles 

containing lead at concentrations that 

would result in a greater than 5 percent 

chance that a fetus’s blood lead value 

would exceed 10 μg/dL. 

• RAO No. 2—Prevent direct human 

contact (adult workers) with surface 

soils containing antimony at 

concentrations which have a hazard 

index greater than 1. 

• RAO No. 3—Prevent direct human 

contact with asbestos containing 

material at concentrations greater than 1 

percent by weight. 

• RAO No. 4—Prevent direct contact 

with the underground storage tank, its 

contents, and surrounding contaminated 

soils. 

• RAO No. 5—Prevent direct human 

contact (pregnant adult woman worker 

and adult workers) with slag pile 

material with toxicity characteristic 

leaching procedure lead concentrations 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
27196 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

greater than 5 milligrams per liter and 

handle as hazardous waste in 

accordance with all applicable federal, 

state, and local regulations. 

• RAO No. 6—Prevent migration of 

contaminants to deeper soils and 

ground water through the former onsite 

water supply well and from the existing 

buildings, slabs, sump, and trash. 

The EPA established the RAO CLs 

based on the revised baseline human 

health risk assessment for an industrial 

reuse scenario to reduce the excess 

noncancer risk associated with exposure 

to contaminated wastes and the excess 

risk of exceeding 10 μg/dL blood lead 

level. The CL for antimony was 

established as 820 mg/kg, and the CL for 

lead was established as 1400 mg/kg. 

During this time, the LDEQ conducted 

a Site-specific evaluation of the leaching 

data and determined that soil data did 

not exceed the calculated Site-specific 

CL for protection of ground water. As a 

result, it was removed as a cleanup 

criteria for the Site. 

The major components of the 2004 

ESD were: 

1. Stabilization—Approximately 1300 

yd3 of hazardous waste would be 

excavated and stabilized. The material 

would be stabilized until sampling 

verified that it no longer exceeded TCLP 

for lead. After verification, the waste 

would be disposed offsite at a RCRA 

regulated Subtitle D facility. 

2. ACM—Materials would be 

consolidated onsite, contained, and 

transported offsite to a disposal facility 

licensed to accept ACM. Methods to 

control airborne dispersion of asbestos 

would be implemented during 

remediation. The estimated total volume 

of material was 22 yd.3

3. UST—The UST, its contents, and 

the surrounding petroleum wastes 

would be characterized during the 

remedial design to determine whether 

the contents would be cleaned up under 

CERCLA or Oil Pollution Act authority. 

The surrounding polychlorinated 

biphenyl contaminated soils would be 

removed and disposed offsite in 

accordance with federal, state, and local 

regulations. The total volume of tank 

contents was estimated at 5,000 gallons. 

4. Building debris and water supply 

well—The onsite well would be plugged 

and abandoned in accordance with 

federal, state, and local regulations. 

Portions of the Site would be cleared, 

where necessary, and the existing 

buildings and foundations would be 

demolished, removed and disposed 

offsite. 

5. Soil/sediment—Approximately 

1,766 yd3 of lead and antimony 

contaminated soil and sediment would 

be excavated and disposed offsite in a 

RCRA Subtitle D facility. 

6. Air Monitoring—During remedial 

action, efforts would be made to control 

dust and run-off to limit the amount of 

materials that may migrate to a potential 

receptor. Air monitoring would be 

conducted during times of remediation 

to ensure that control measures are 

working to regulate Site emissions. 

7. O&M and ICs—The implementation 

of ICs and O&M would be necessary to 

restrict land use and ensure 

protectiveness. 

8. Five-Year Reviews—Because 

hazardous substances would remain on 

the Site above levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure, reviews of the remedy would 

be conducted no less than every five 

years to ensure that the remedy 

functions as designed, and remains 

protective of human health and the 

environment. 

9. Contingency Remedy—Excavation 

and Offsite Disposal was added as a 

contingency for the hazardous waste. 

The implementation of this contingency 

was dependent on the completion of a 

treatability analysis of the stabilization 

process. 

Explanation of Significant Differences 

Dated January 2, 2008 

As part of the Consent Decree 

negotiations and remedial design 

activities, the PRP, through a treatability 

evaluation, researched and reviewed 

options related to stabilization of the 

slag waste. Information gathered during 

the treatability evaluation was 

submitted by KCS in a letter dated 

September 13, 2007. The evaluation 

supported the use of the contingency 

remedy documented in the 2004 ESD as 

being a more efficient and cost effective 

approach for remediation of the 

hazardous slag waste. Therefore, the 

2008 ESD was issued to document the 

information that significantly changed a 

component of the selected remedy and 

to invoke the Contingency Remedy as 

outlined in the 2004 ESD. The 

contingency remedy, Excavation and 

Offsite Disposal, included the removal 

of the 1,300 yd3 of hazardous slag waste 

from the Site with subsequent offsite 

disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. 

All other components of the remedy 

remain unchanged. 

The major components of the 2008 

ESD were: 

1. Hazardous Waste—Approximately 

1300 yd3 of hazardous waste would be 

excavated and disposed offsite at a 

RCRA regulated Subtitle C facility. 

2. ACM—Materials would be 

consolidated onsite, contained, and 

transported offsite to a disposal facility 

licensed to accept ACM. Methods to 

control airborne dispersion of asbestos 

would be implemented during 

remediation. The estimated total volume 

of material was 22 yd3. 

3. UST—The UST, its contents, and 

the surrounding petroleum wastes 

would be characterized during the 

remedial design to determine whether 

the contents would be cleaned up under 

CERCLA or Oil Pollution Act authority. 

The surrounding polychlorinated 

biphenyl contaminated soils would be 

removed and disposed offsite in 

accordance with federal, state, and local 

regulations. Total volume of tank 

contents was estimated at 5,000 gallons. 

4. Building debris and water supply 

well—The onsite well would be plugged 

and abandoned in accordance with 

federal, state, and local regulations. 

Portions of the Site would be cleared, 

where necessary, and the existing 

buildings and foundations would be 

demolished, removed and disposed 

offsite. 

5. Soil/sediment—Approximately 

1,766 yd3 of lead and antimony 

contaminated soil and sediment would 

be excavated and disposed offsite in a 

RCRA Subtitle D facility. 

6. Air Monitoring—During remedial 

action, efforts would be made to control 

dust and run-off to limit the amount of 

materials that may migrate to a potential 

receptor. Air monitoring would be 

conducted during times of remediation 

to ensure that control measures are 

working to regulate Site emissions. 

7. O&M and ICs—The implementation 

of ICs and O&M would be necessary to 

restrict land use and ensure 

protectiveness. 

8. Five-Year Reviews—Because 

hazardous substances would remain on 

the Site above levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure, reviews of the remedy would 

be conducted no less than every five 

years to ensure that the remedy is 

functioning as designed, and remains 

protective of human health and the 

environment. 

Explanation of Significant Differences 

Dated November 9, 2009 

This ESD documented the results 

from the remedial action activities for 

the Site that support the Site’s 

unlimited use and unrestricted exposure 

scenario. Overall Site excavation and 

offsite disposal activities resulted in the 

removal of contaminated media to levels 

below the established CLs for the 

recreational/residential scenario. 

Because the Site meets unlimited use 

and unrestricted exposure, the ESD 

removed the ICs, O&M, and five-year 

reviews as components of the overall 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 27197 

Site remedy documented in the 2004 

ESD and the 2008 Contingency ESD. 

Response Actions 

The Consent Decree between EPA and 

KCS was entered by the court on 

January 14, 2008. A notice to proceed 

was issued to the KCS on January 22, 

2008. The Site RD/RA was completed as 

an EPA enforcement-lead project with 

LDEQ acting as the supporting agency, 

and KCS performing the work. The final 

Remedial Design and Implementation 

Work Plan was submitted by KCS on 

February 21, 2008, and was accepted by 

the Agencies as final on February 28, 

2008. 

Prior to implementing the response 

actions, a Louisiana-licensed asbestos 

abatement contractor completed a 

survey of and sampled potential ACM 

on January 28, 2008. Following receipt 

of the results of the asbestos sampling 

program, a second more local licensed 

contractor filed the required notification 

form on February 19, 2008, completed 

the abatement work on March 5, 2008, 

and disposed of 30 yd3 on March 7, 

2008. 

The KCS construction contractor 

mobilized personnel, equipment and 

operations trailers to the Site on 

February 25, 2008. Between March 5 

and 14, 2008, the areas of interest (AOIs) 

and slag piles were identified and 

marked. From March 14 through May 

20, 2008, clearing and grubbing, soil 

excavation, slag removal, confirmation 

sampling, backfilling, and seeding 

activities were completed. 

A preliminary project closeout 

meeting/Site walk was held on May 10, 

2008, by EPA, LDEQ, and KCS. A punch 

list was created at that time. KCS 

completed hydroseeding, water system 

construction, and punch list items 

between May 11 and 20, 2008, along 

with a pre-final inspection with EPA 

and LDEQ on May 14, 2008. A formal 

Site closeout walk with the same parties 

was conducted on June 17, 2008. No 

additional punch list items were 

identified. 

While performing Site remedial 

activities, KCS determined that minimal 

effort and cost would be required to 

address Site contamination to levels 

well below the CLs established for lead 

and antimony under an industrial 

scenario as described in the 2004 ESD. 

KCS was back at the Site on July 9, 

2008, collecting soil samples from 

locations identified in the Remedial 

Investigation with lead concentrations 

between 500 mg/kg and 1400 mg/kg. In 

addition, KCS collected confirmation 

soil samples within AOIs that were 

excavated to native clay visually, to 

establish that lead concentrations were 

below 500 mg/kg. A single sample 

location south of the drainage ditch was 

above the unrestricted use standard of 

500 mg/kg. KCS remobilized to the Site 

on August 18, 2008, to complete 

excavation of this area. Using visual 

removal as the criteria, contamination 

was excavated from approximately 0.9 

acres followed by the collection of 

confirmation samples. The excavation 

area was backfilled and seeded. EPA 

and KCS conducted a final Site walk of 

the south supplemental excavation on 

August 22, 2008. This supplemental 

work was completed on August 24, 

2008. The Preliminary Close Out Report 

was signed on September 3, 2008, 

documenting the completion of onsite 

construction. 

Review of the draft remedial action 

report noted that an area along the 

southern boundary, just north of the 

canal may not have been fully 

addressed. On May 15, 2009, EPA and 

KCS performed a Site inspection to 

verify whether field activities were 

completed in this area. Visual 

inspection of the area confirmed that 

additional excavation would be 

required. 

KCS mobilized to the Site during the 

week of May 25, 2009, and began 

clearing the canal bank. Excavation of 

contaminated soil and slag began during 

the week of June 1, 2009, and was 

completed on June 23, 2009. EPA and 

LDEQ were onsite June 23, 2009, to 

conduct a Site inspection with KCS. 

Seeding of the canal bank was 

completed on July 2, 2009, and later 

inspected jointly by LDEQ and KCS on 

July 22, 2009. During the inspection, it 

was noted that significant erosion had 

taken place due to heavy rains. These 

areas were repaired with riprap and 

inspected by KCS and LDEQ on August 

25, 2009. 

Details related to the remedial action 

are found in the final Ruston Foundry 

Superfund Site Remediation Report 

dated March 9, 2009, and the Ruston 

Foundry Superfund Site Remediation 

Report Addendum dated September 10, 

2009. 

After completion and acceptance of 

the final remedial action documents, the 

final Close Out Report for the was 

finalized on January 29, 2010, 

documenting completion of remedial 

action activities. 

Cleanup Goals 

The quality assurance/quality control 

(QA/QC) program for the Site was 

conducted in accordance with the work 

plan prepared to implement the 

remedial action construction activities. 

The EPA, in conjunction with LDEQ, 

conducted regular oversight throughout 

the implementation of the remedial 

action, reviewed and commented on all 

project plans for the Site, and 

participated in the Pre-final and Final 

Construction Inspections. 

The quality assurance project plan 

incorporated EPA and State comments 

and requirements. The EPA and LDEQ 

reviewed the remedial action 

construction work for compliance with 

QA/QC protocols. Construction 

activities at the Site were determined to 

be consistent with the ROD, ESDs, and 

the Remedial Design and 

Implementation Work Plan and 

specifications. Deviations or nonadherence to QA/QC protocols or 

specifications were properly 

documented and resolved. 

All monitoring equipment was 

calibrated and operated in accordance 

with the manufacturer’s instructions 

and protocols established in the quality 

assurance project plan. During 

sampling, equipment was properly 

decontaminated prior to each use. The 

EPA analytical methods and contract 

laboratory program-like procedures and 

protocols were used for all confirmation 

and monitoring samples for soil and air 

analyses during the RA using a private 

laboratory contracted by the PRP. Air 

sample analyses followed EPA protocols 

in the Compendium of Methods for the 

Determination of Toxic Compounds in 

Ambient Air. The EPA and the State 

determined that analytical results were 

accurate to the degree needed to assure 

satisfactory execution of the RA. 

Monitoring activities implemented 

during 2008 and 2009 remedial action 

are presented in the following 

paragraphs. 

1. ACM—A Louisiana-licensed 

asbestos abatement contractor visually 

identified building debris that 

potentially contained asbestos. The 

contractor collected 6 samples of 

building debris material and mapped 

the area around the former foundry 

building where the debris was located. 

Asbestos was positively identified in 

three samples, two of cement board 

building debris and one of black 

flashing building debris. The ACM was 

localized about the former foundry 

building with no evidence of burial. 

Prior to excavation activities, the ACM 

debris was consolidated onsite, 

contained, and transported offsite to a 

disposal facility licensed to accept 

ACM. Methods to control airborne 

dispersion of asbestos were 

implemented during remediation. The 

final total volume of material disposed 

offsite was 30 yd3. After removal of the 

ACM, the underlying soil within the 

ACM area was incorporated into the 

overall slag and soil excavation areas. At 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
27198 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

a minimum, 6 inches of soil were 

removed during remediation, and the 

area was backfilled with clean fill upon 

completion. 

2. Slag—Slag piles were visually 

identified, outlined and surveyed. Slag 

was either handpicked and moved with 

wheelbarrows or shoveled using heavy 

equipment. After removal of the slag, 

the underlying soil was incorporated 

into the overall soil excavation areas. At 

a minimum 6 inches of soil were 

removed during remediation, and the 

area was backfilled with clean fill upon 

completion. Approximately 745.94 tons 

of hazardous waste from the northern 

portion and 45 yd3 of hazardous waste 

from the canal bank were excavated and 

shipped to a permitted RCRA hazardous 

waste landfill. 

3. UST—The UST was found about 2 

feet below ground level with an 

approximate 500-gallon capacity. The 

UST was filled with soil and a few 

gallons of rainwater. No staining was 

evident in the surrounding soil; 

however, the rainwater had a 

petroleum-like odor. Two soil samples 

were collected from the base of the 

excavation area and analyzed for total 

petroleum hydrocarbons by EPA 

Method 8015 diesel range organics and 

kerosene. Results were below LDEQ 

UST standards. The UST was 

decontaminated and disposed offsite. 

The surrounding soil was incorporated 

into the overall soil excavation areas. 

4. Water Supply Well—All 5 onsite 

monitoring wells, designated MW–1 

through MW–5, were closed by a 

licensed Louisiana contractor in 

accordance with LDEQ State 

requirements. 

5. Building Debris—The concrete 

slabs were broken with jackhammers, 

stockpiled with the excavator, and 

pressure washed to remove loose soil. 

After decontamination, an estimated 

550 yd3 of concrete was transported 

offsite and donated to a local concrete 

recycler. All other domestic trash 

dumped on the property was removed 

and disposed offsite. Remnants of four 

remaining structures and a large amount 

of miscellaneous scrap metal were 

consolidated into piles, power washed, 

and loaded onto trailers. Approximately 

43 tons of steel and other metal debris 

were recycled. 

6. Confirmation Samples— 

Approximately 7,220 yd3 [6,140 yd3

from the northern portion, 1069.5 tons 

(713 yd3) from the southern portion, and 

550 tons (367 yd3) from the canal bank] 

of lead and antimony contaminated soil 

and sediment were excavated and 

disposed offsite in a RCRA Subtitle D 

facility. Excavation progressed to the 

underlying native clay with depths 

ranging from 6 inches to 4 ft below 

original ground surface. 

Five-point composites were collected 

from 25 by 25-foot grids used across the 

northern portion of the property. These 

grid locations were supplemented with 

six additional confirmation sample 

locations in areas where soil and slag 

locations overlapped. The southern 

portion of the property was sampled 

based on sample locations from the RI 

and the estimated location of the 

historic foundry building footprint. All 

confirmation sample results show levels 

of lead and antimony to be less than the 

CLs required for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure as determined by 

the Site-specific risk assessment. Lead 

concentrations are less than 500 mg/kg, 

with the highest concentration left 

onsite at 342 mg/kg, and antimony 

concentrations are less than 150 mg/kg, 

with the highest concentration left 

onsite at 18.9 mg/kg. The concentrations 

are consistent with accepted unlimited 

use and unrestricted exposure scenarios. 

In addition, identified ACM, hazardous 

waste (slag), and the UST were removed 

and disposed offsite. 

7. Backfill—Six (6) composite samples 

were taken of the stockpiled native clay 

placed on the adjacent KCS property by 

the city of Alexandria during drainage 

ditch construction. Two (2) composite 

samples were collected from an offsite 

borrow source used for backfill during 

the 2008 and 2009 remedial activity. All 

samples were analyzed for RCRA 

metals. Results were consistent with 

background, and specifically met the 

CLs for lead and antimony. 

Approximately 9,185 yd3 of backfill 

(7,800 yd3 on the northern portion, 

1,185 yd3 on the southern portion, and 

200 yd3 on the canal bank) were used 

to fill excavation areas and grade the 

Site for proper drainage. 

8. Air—During remedial action, efforts 

were made to control dust and run-off 

to limit the amount of materials that 

may migrate to a potential receptor. 

Work areas were continually wetted 

down to control potential dust 

emissions. Air monitoring was 

conducted during times of remediation 

upgradient, downgradient, and within 

the excavation areas as well as on 

personnel working within the exclusion 

zone. Air monitoring results did not 

exceed the Site-specific action levels for 

lead, antimony, or total suspended 

particulates. 

Based on Site construction activity 

and subsequent confirmation sampling, 

all remedial action objectives have been 

met as well as the criteria for unlimited 

use and unrestricted exposure. The 

excavation areas were backfilled with 

suitable materials meeting Site-specific 

CLs, graded for proper drainage, and 

seeded. 

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. The EPA worked closely with 

the local Lower Third Neighborhood 

Group. Documents in the deletion 

docket which EPA relied on for 

recommendation of the deletion from 

the NPL are available to the public in 

the information repositories. 

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. EPA, in consultation with 

the State of Louisiana, has determined 

that all appropriate response action 

under CERCLA has been implemented, 

and no further response action by the 

PRP is appropriate. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State of Louisiana, through the LDEQ, 

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 July 13, 2010 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by June 14, 2010. If adverse comments 

are received within the 30-day public 

comment period, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

notice of deletion before the effective 

date of the deletion, and it will not take 

effect. EPA will prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 27199 

Dated: April 29, 2010. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

■ For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 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 the entry 

‘‘Ruston Foundry, Alexandria, LA.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2010–11306 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket Nos. 07–294; 06–121; 02–277; 

04–228, MM Docket Nos. 01–235; 01–317; 

00–244; FCC 10–49] 

Promoting Diversification of 

Ownership in the Broadcasting 

Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction and 

correcting amendments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission published in the Federal 

Register of May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28361), 

a Report and Order concerning steps the 

Commission took to increase 

participation in the broadcasting 

industry by new entrants and small 

businesses, including minority- and 

women-owned business. This document 

corrects the Report and Order by 

substituting the word ‘‘ethnicity’’ for 

‘‘gender’’ in explaining the requirements 

for broadcasters to certify that their 

advertising contracts do not 

discriminate on the basis of race or 

ethnicity and that such contracts 

contain nondiscrimination clauses. In 

this document, the FCC also corrects the 

rules in 47 CFR 73.3555 and 73.5008 

published at 73 FR 28361, May 16, 

2008, related to steps the Commission 

took to increase participation in the 

broadcasting industry by eligible 

entities, including minority- and 

women-owned businesses. 

DATES: The amendments to 47 CFR 

73.3555 and 73.5008 in this rule are 

effective May 14, 2010, and Form 

303–S will become effective 30 days 

after the Commission publishes a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Brett, (202) 418–2703. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Third 

Erratum, FCC 10–49, adopted March 29, 

2010 and released March 29, 2010. In 

FR Doc. E8–11039 the Federal 

Communications Commission 

published a Report and Order in the 

Federal Register of May 16, 2008 (73 FR 

28361) in FCC 07–217. 

On page 28364, in the first column, 

paragraph 11, the Commission 

inadvertently used the word ‘‘gender’’ 

instead of ‘‘ethnicity.’’ This document 

corrects that error and revises the 

language to read as follows: 

The Commission finds that discriminatory 

practices have no place in broadcasting and 

concludes that it is appropriate for the 

Commission to require broadcasters renewing 

their licenses to certify that their advertising 

contracts do not discriminate on the basis of 

race or ethnicity and that such contracts 

contain nondiscrimination clauses. 

Also, in this document the 

Commission amends Note 2(i) of 47 CFR 

73.3555 and 47 CFR 73.5008(c), 

published at 73 FR 28361, May 16, 

2008, so the rules accurately reflect the 

Commission’s intent. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the final regulations 

contain inadvertent errors which need 

to be corrected. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 

Radio, Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Bulah Wheeler, 

Acting Associate Secretary. 

■ Accordingly, 47 CFR part 73 is 

corrected by making the following 

correcting amendments: 

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, 

and 339. 

■ 2. Revise paragraph i. of Note 2 to 

§ 73.3555, to read as follows: 

§ 73.3555 Multiple ownership. 

* * * * * 

i.1. Notwithstanding paragraphs e. 

and f. of this Note, the holder of an 

equity or debt interest or interests in a 

broadcast licensee, cable television 

system, daily newspaper, or other media 

outlet subject to the broadcast multiple 

ownership or cross-ownership rules 

(‘‘interest holder’’) shall have that 

interest attributed if: 

A. The equity (including all 

stockholdings, whether voting or 

nonvoting, common or preferred) and 

debt interest or interests, in the 

aggregate, exceed 33 percent of the total 

asset value, defined as the aggregate of 

all equity plus all debt, of that media 

outlet; and 

B.(i) The interest holder also holds an 

interest in a broadcast licensee, cable 

television system, newspaper, or other 

media outlet operating in the same 

market that is subject to the broadcast 

multiple ownership or cross-ownership 

rules and is attributable under 

paragraphs of this note other than this 

paragraph i.; or 

(ii) The interest holder supplies over 

fifteen percent of the total weekly 

broadcast programming hours of the 

station in which the interest is held. For 

purposes of applying this paragraph, the 

term, ‘‘market,’’ will be defined as it is 

defined under the specific multiple 

ownership rule or cross-ownership rule 

that is being applied, except that for 

television stations, the term ‘‘market,’’ 

will be defined by reference to the 

definition contained in the local 

television multiple ownership rule 

contained in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

2. Notwithstanding paragraph i.1. of 

this Note, the interest holder may 

exceed the 33 percent threshold therein 

without triggering attribution where 

holding such interest would enable an 

eligible entity to acquire a broadcast 

station, provided that: 

i. The combined equity and debt of 

the interest holder in the eligible entity 

is less than 50 percent, or 

ii. The total debt of the interest holder 

in the eligible entity does not exceed 80 

percent of the asset value of the station 

being acquired by the eligible entity and 

the interest holder does not hold any 

equity interest, option, or promise to 

acquire an equity interest in the eligible 

entity or any related entity. For 

purposes of this paragraph i.2, an 

‘‘eligible entity’’ shall include any entity 

that qualifies as a small business under 

the Small Business Administration’s 

size standards for its industry grouping, 

as set forth in 13 CFR 121.201, at the 

time the transaction is approved by the 

FCC, and holds: 

A. 30 percent or more of the stock or 

partnership interests and more than 50 

percent of the voting power of the 

corporation or partnership that will own 

the media outlet; or 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES