60058 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules

(1) Product codes and other nonregulatory language may not be used as

a substitute for the specified PTD

warning language specified in paragraph

(a)(6) of this section for custody

transfers of base gasoline to truck

carriers, retail outlets, and wholesale

purchaser-consumer facilities or for

transfers of exempt base gasoline to be

used for research, development, or test

purposes.

* * * * *

3. Section 80.170 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (f)(7) to read as

follows:

§ 80.170 Volumetric additive reconciliation

(VAR), equipment calibration, and

recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(7) If a detergent blender uses an

oxygenate -or PRC-restricted certified

detergent to additize fuel,

documentation must be maintained by

that blender fully identifying the

oxygenate and/or PRC (as applicable)

content of the fuel into which the

oxygenate or PRC-restricted detergent

was blended, so as to confirm or to

substantially confirm that the fuel into

which the restricted detergent was

blended complied with the use

restriction. Documentation which may

be used to fulfill this requirement

includes, but is not limited to: PTD(s)

from the fuel supplier identifying all the

oxygenates or PRC (as appropriate) in

the fuel; test results identifying all the

oxygenates or PRC (as appropriate) in

the fuel; written contract language

between the supplier and the blender

establishing the complete oxygenate

and/or PRC (as appropriate) content of

the supplied fuel.

* * * * *

4. Section 80.171 is amended as

follows:

a. Paragraph (a)(5) is removed.

b. Paragraphs (a)(6) through (12) are

redesignated as paragraphs (a)(5)

through (a)(11).

c. Paragraph(b)(1) is revised to read as

follows:

§ 80.171 Product Transfer Documents

(PTDs)

* * * * *

(b) Use of product codes and other

non-regulatory language.

(1) Product codes and other nonregulatory language may not be used as

a substitute for the PTD warning

language specified in paragraph (a)(6) of

this section for custody transfers of base

gasoline to truck carriers, retail outlets,

and wholesale purchaser-consumer

facilities, or for transfers of exempt base

gasoline to be used for research,

development, or test purposes.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–29390 Filed 11–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5916–7]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the

Browning-Ferris Industries—South

Brunswick Landfill Site from the

National Priorities List; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region II announces its

intent to delete the Browning-Ferris

Industries—South Brunswick Landfill

Site (Site) from the National Priorities

List (NPL) and requests public comment

on this action. The NPL constitutes

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which

is the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, 42

U.S.C 9601 et seq. EPA and the New

Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection (NJDEP) have determined

that the Site poses no significant threat

to public health or the environment and,

therefore, further remedial measures

pursuant to CERCLA are not

appropriate.

DATES: Comments concerning this Site

may be submitted on or before

December 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Mary Anne Rosa, Remedial Project

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway-19th

Floor, New York, NY 10007–1866.

The deletion docket and other

comprehensive information on this Site

is available for viewing at the BrowningFerris Industries—South Brunswick

Landfill Site information repository at

the following location: Town of South

Brunswick Municipal Building, P.O.

Box 190, Monmouth Junction, New

Jersey 08852, (908) 329–4000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mary Anne Rosa, Remedial Project

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region II, 290 Broadway—19th

Floor, New York, New York 10007–

1866, (212) 637–4407.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

EPA Region II announces its intent to

delete the Browning-Ferris Industries—

South Brunswick Landfill Site, which is

located in South Brunswick Township,

Middlesex County, New Jersey, from the

NPL, which constitutes Appendix B of

the NCP, 40 CFR part 300, and requests

comments on this deletion. EPA

identifies sites that appear to present a

significant risk to public health, welfare,

or the environment and maintains the

NPL as the list of these sites. As

described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP,

sites deleted from the NPL remain

eligible for remedial actions in the

unlikely event that conditions at the site

warrant such action.

EPA will accept comments on the

proposal to delete this Site until

December 8, 1997.

Section II of this notice explains the

criteria for deleting sites from the NPL.

Section III discusses the procedures that

EPA is using for this action. Section IV

discusses the Site and explains how the

Site meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP

provides that sites may be deleted from

the NPL where no further response is

appropriate. In making a determination

to delete a site from the NPL, EPA in

consultation with NJDEP, shall consider

whether any of the following criteria

have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other parties

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required; or

(ii) All appropriate responses under

CERCLA have been implemented, and

no further action by responsible parties

is appropriate; or

(iii)The remedial investigation has

shown that the release of hazardous

substances poses no significant threat to

public health or the environment and,

therefore, remedial measures are not

appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

The following procedures were used

for the intended deletion of this Site: (1)

EPA Region II issued a Record of

Decision (ROD) which documented the

remedial action activities; (2) all

appropriate responses under CERCLA
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules 60059

have been implemented as documented

in the Final Close-Out Report dated

September 1997; (3) the NJDEP

concurred with the proposed deletion;

(4) a notice has been published in the

local newspaper and has been

distributed to appropriate Federal, State

and local officials and other interested

parties announcing the commencement

of a 30-day public comment period on

EPA’s Notice of Intent to Delete; and (5)

all relevant documents have been made

available for public review in the local

Site information repository.

Deletion of sites from the NPL does

not itself create, alter, or revoke any

individual’s rights or obligations. The

NPL is designed primarily for

informational purposes and to assist

Agency management of Superfund sites.

As mentioned in section II of this

document, § 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.

For deletion of this Site, EPA’s

Regional Office will accept and evaluate

public comments before making a final

decision to delete. If necessary, the

Agency will prepare a Responsiveness

Summary to address any significant

public comments received.

A deletion occurs when the Regional

Administrator places a final notice in

the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL

will reflect deletions in the final update

following the notice. Public notices and

copies of the Responsiveness Summary

will be made available to local residents

by the Regional Office.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

The following summary provides the

Agency’s rationale for the proposal to

delete this Site from the NPL.

A. Site Background

The Site is located along New Road,

approximately one-half mile northwest

of U.S. Route 1, in Middlesex County,

New Jersey. The landfill occupies an

area of approximately 68 acres. A

significant portion of the land

surrounding the Site is wooded. It is

owned by Browning-Ferris Industries

(BFI) of South Jersey. The Site, which

operated for more than 20 years as a

solid waste landfill, accepted municipal

refuse, pesticides, chemical wastes and

hazardous wastes.

B. History

In June 1980, EPA conducted an

investigation of the Site. The sampling

results revealed elevated levels of

volatile organic compounds in several

on-site monitoring wells, as well as onsite surface water sampling locations.

The data from this sampling effort

resulted in the Site being proposed for

the Superfund NPL on December 1,

1982, and the Site was included on the

NPL on November 1, 1983.

In April 1982, BFI and EPA entered

into an agreement concerning the

remedial efforts to be performed. The

agreement was in the form of a Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

Administrative Order on Consent (Index

No. RCRA–700320101) which outlined

the remedial approach.

C. Characterization

The remedial action activities,

initiated in February 1983, consisted of

the construction of a leachate

collection/treatment system, slurry wall,

multi-layer cap and gas venting system.

The remedial action was completed in

September 1985. EPA issued a Record of

Decision on September 30, 1987, which

affirmed that the remedial action

undertaken was consistent with

CERCLA, as amended, and to the extent

practicable, the NCP.

A public availability session was

conducted by EPA in August 1987 to

discuss with the community the

remedial actions implemented and the

post-remedial environmental

monitoring program. Public comments

were received and addressed in the

Responsiveness Summary portion of the

September 30, 1987, Record of Decision.

D. Monitoring

The May 1993 EPA-approved PostRemedial Environmental Monitoring

Program (PREMP) Work Plan was

designed to assess the effectiveness of

the completed Remedial Action and

evaluate off-Site migration of

contaminants. The PREMP was

conducted from May 1993 to January

1994 and included the collection of

twenty-seven groundwater samples,

thirty-four soil samples, eight surface

water samples and twelve sediment

samples. Post-remedial environmental

monitoring indicated that volatile

organic compounds (VOCs), semi-VOCs,

and inorganic contaminant

concentrations have decreased in

surface water, groundwater, sediment

and soil samples. Therefore, the results

from this investigation document the

effectiveness of the remedy and indicate

there is no significant off-Site migration

of contaminants. Although minimal

groundwater contamination was

detected in the southeastern portion of

the Site in the area of monitoring well

R–10, regulating the leachate collection

system to induce inward gradients

appears to have significantly reduced

contamination. As part of the overall

Site Operation and Maintenance Plan

activities, EPA has required BFI to

periodically evaluate the effectiveness

of the leachate collection system and

routinely monitor well R–10 and

downgradient surface water quality to

ensure the effectiveness of the remedy.

The multi-layered cap has effectively

reduced infiltration, as indicated by the

significant reduction in the amount of

leachate generation over time. The

leachate collection system and slurry

wall have reduced leachate levels

within the landfill, resulting in inward

hydraulic gradients over much of the

Site. Historically, leachate was pretreated to reduce iron concentrations in

the effluent. BFI has been notified by

the Stony Brook Regional Sewerage

Authority (SBRSA) of a change in BFI’s

license classification from a Class 1 to

Restricted Industrial User. BFI is no

longer required to treat for iron. BFI

discharges directly to the sanitary sewer

line while still monitoring monthly per

the requirements of the license issued

by the SBRSA. Also, the gas venting

system is operating in accordance with

the existing NJDEP Air Pollution

Control Program permit and a series of

perimeter gas monitoring probes are

periodically monitored. Project

Managers from EPA and BFI conducted

a Site inspection on September 12,

1995. The purpose of this inspection

was to determine the current status of

the Site and the adequacy of the Site

cleanup. The remedial action,

completed since September 1985,

remains in place and is operating and

functioning as designed.

E. Operation and Maintenance

The cleanup of the Site was

performed in compliance with ‘‘clean

closure’’ requirements and consistent

with the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act of 1976, as amended,

CERCLA, as amended, and to the extent

practicable, the NCP. Pursuant to the

1989 Administrative Order, BFI has

committed to performing Operation and

Maintenance (O&M) activities at the

Site. In August 1997, EPA approved the

Site O&M Plan, which defines the longterm O&M activities for the Site. The

O&M Plan addresses those activities

required for controlling the groundwater

gradient in the area of monitoring well

R–10, maintaining the effectiveness of

the response action, and monitoring Site

conditions to determine the occurrence

of any environmental threat. O&M

activities include periodic inspections

and maintenance of waste containment

measures, periodic air, groundwater and

surface water monitoring, certain

institutional controls, periodic leachate

collection and treatment measures, or

any other activities necessary to ensure
60060 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 215 / Thursday, November 6, 1997 / Proposed Rules

the continued protection of public

health and the environment.

F. Protectiveness

All the completion requirements for

this Site have been met as described in

the Final Close-Out Report (COR) dated

September 1997. The Final COR

documents the effectiveness of the postremedial environmental monitoring and

that the remedy (slurry wall, multilayered cap, leachate collection system,

gas venting system and installation of a

Site security fence) remains protective.

Site O&M activities will be performed

by BFI, with EPA oversight.

EPA and NJDEP have determined that

all appropriate Fund-financed responses

under CERCLA at the Site have been

completed, and that no further

construction activities by responsible

parties is necessary except for operation

and maintenance requirements. EPA

will be providing oversight of all

operation and maintenance activities.

Consequently, EPA is proposing

deletion of this Site from the NPL.

Documents supporting this action are

available in the docket.

Dated: September 29, 1997.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–29150 Filed 11–5–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA)

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 971015247–7247–01; I.D.

091597D]

RIN 0648-AK19

Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Modify IFQ

Survivorship Transfer Provisions

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes a regulatory

amendment to the Individual Fishing

Quota (IFQ) Program for fixed gear

Pacific halibut and sablefish fisheries in

and off of Alaska. This action would

modify the survivorship transfer

provisions to allow heirs of deceased

quota share (QS) or IFQ holders to

receive such QS or IFQ by transfer and

to transfer the resulting IFQs to any

person eligible to receive IFQ for up to

3 years following the date of a QS

holder’s death. This action is necessary

to extend survivorship privileges to

other heirs in addition to surviving

spouses and to allow such heirs to

obtain pecuniary benefit from such IFQ.

The intended effect of this action is to

provide temporary financial relief for

the heirs of QS holders.

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule

and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)

must be received December 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be sent to

the Chief, Fisheries Management

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Room

453, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK

99801, or P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK

99802, Attention: Lori J. Gravel.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Hale, 907–586–7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The fixed gear halibut and sablefish

fisheries are managed by the IFQ

Program, a limited access system for

fixed gear Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus

stenolepis) and sablefish (Anoplopoma

fimbria) fisheries in and off of Alaska.

Under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act and the Northern

Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut

Act), NMFS implemented the IFQ

Program in 1995, on the

recommendation of the North Pacific

Fishery Management Council (Council),

to reduce excessive fishing capacity in

the fixed gear Pacific halibut and

sablefish fisheries, while maintaining

the social and economic character of

these fisheries and the Alaskan coastal

communities where many of these

fishermen are based.

Restrictions in the IFQ Program foster

the transfer of QS among fishermen

qualified to fish the annual allocations

of IFQ that QS generate. These

restrictions are intended to discourage

excessive consolidation and the

acquisition of QS by investment

speculators. Persons who are not

qualified to receive IFQ may receive QS

by transfer, but such QS would be

restricted from generating IFQ that may

be used to harvest IFQ halibut or

sablefish.

The Council’s approved IFQ Program

authorizes temporary exceptions to the

transfer restrictions. In 1996, on the

authority of the transfer provisions in

the Fishery Management Plan for the

Gulf of Alaska Groundfish Fishery and

the Fishery Management Plan for the

Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Groundfish,

NMFS implemented an exception to the

transfer restrictions that grants

temporary transfer privileges to the

spouse of a deceased QS holder who

receives QS by right of survivorship, but

is otherwise unqualified to harvest IFQ

(61 FR 41523, August 9, 1996). The

exception allows the surviving spouse

who receives QS or IFQ, first, to transfer

any of the current year’s IFQ for the

duration of the allocation year and,

second, to lease the total annual

allocations of IFQ resulting from the QS

transferred by right of survivorship for

3 calendar years from the date of the

death of the deceased holder of QS or

IFQ (§ 679.41(k)(2)).

In October 1996, the IFQ Industry

Implementation Team recommended a

proposal to extend the survivorship

transfer provisions to heirs in a

deceased QS holder’s immediate family,

in addition to a surviving spouse. In

June 1997, the Council took final action

to extend the survivorship transfer

provisions to any individual who

receives QS by right of survivorship.

This action would benefit heirs who

were not initially issued QS or who are

not IFQ crew members. Without

meeting those criteria, individuals who

receive QS by right of survivorship

would be otherwise ineligible to receive

IFQ. The new provision would allow an

individual who receives QS by right of

survivorship to transfer, for up to 3

years, the total IFQ resulting from that

QS to anyone eligible to receive IFQ and

thereby obtain pecuniary benefit from

the QS for that period. The Council

determined that 3 years would provide

an heir with adequate time to resolve

permanently any issues that may arise

due to receiving QS or IFQ by right of

survivorship, including subsequent

transfers. Upon the death of a QS or IFQ

holder, the Regional Administrator,

upon application for transfer, would

transfer QS or IFQ to an individual who

demonstrates a right of succession to

such QS or IFQ, through intestate or

testate succession. The Regional

Administrator, upon application for

transfer, would transfer, for up to 3

calendar years following the date of

death of an individual QS holder, IFQ

from an individual who received the

originating QS through intestate or

testate succession to any person eligible

to receive IFQ.

This action would also correct an

error in the survivorship transfer

regulations that resulted from the

consolidation of regulations governing

the EEZ off Alaska in 61 FR 31228 (June

19, 1997). In the consolidation of the

regulations, the reference to paragraph

(g)(2) in § 679.41(k) should have been

revised to read (h)(2). This action would

make the necessary revision to correct

the oversight.