        POSTAL SERVICE
        39 CFR Part 111
        Address Visibility on Bundles of Flat-Size and Irregular Parcel Mail

          AGENCY:
          Postal Service.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Postal Service is seeking comments on a proposal that adds additional standards for the visibility of address elements and presort designation (i.e., optional endorsement lines, barcoded pressure sensitive package labels, or facing slips) on bundles of flat-size and irregular parcel mailpieces. The proposed new standards apply only to bundles that are candidates for processing on automated bundle sorting equipment. The standards would require that all elements in the delivery address and the presort designation on the top piece of carrier route and presort bundles containing flat-size or irregular parcel mailpieces, either prepared in sacks or placed directly on pallets, be completely visible and readable without the need to manipulate the banding or shrinkwrap.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before October 18, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Mail or deliver comments to the Manager, Mailing Standards, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW. Rm 3436, Washington, DC 20260-3436. Copies of all written comments will be available for inspection and photocopying between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Postal Service Headquarters Library, 11th Floor North, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Barry Walsh, Operational Requirements and Integration, U.S. Postal Service, (202) 268-7595; or Vicki Bosch, Mailing Standards, U.S. Postal Service, (202) 268-7277.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        To help control mail processing costs, the Postal Service uses automated equipment whenever available to process mail. Automation reduces manual processing costs and helps maintain stable postage rates. The Postal Service has experienced significant savings through the use of automated equipment to sort letter-size and flat-size mailpieces.
        To further reduce processing costs, the Postal Service started deployment of new automated package processing system (APPS) equipment to process parcels and bundles. The new APPS equipment will replace many of the small parcel and bundle sorters (SPBSs) now used in major Postal Service processing facilities. The APPS equipment has optical character recognition (OCR) capability that can read the delivery information on bundles of mail and subsequently process mail more efficiently.
        Bundle address visibility and the visibility of the presort designation are essential for automated processing of presort bundles with APPS equipment. Banding, shrinkwrap, labels, or facing slips that obscure all or part of the delivery address or presort designation on the top piece of bundles lower the processing efficiency of the APPS equipment. The APPS equipment reads the address on small parcels and presort bundles by scanning the address and presort designation on the top piece, and then directing the parcels or presort bundles to the appropriate sort bin.
        During automated induction, there is no opportunity for a postal employee to move strapping, flatten shrinkwrap, or otherwise manipulate bundles to assist the OCR. Bundles or parcels that cannot be read successfully on the first pass must be routed to a semiautomatic induction station, where a postal employee has a limited ability to move strapping away from the address block before re-inducting the bundle into the machine. If address recognition fails again, APPS will reject the bundle or parcel and it will have to be handled manually.
        Address Visibility
        Except as explained below, presort bundles prepared in sacks or on pallets must have the delivery address information visible and readable to the naked eye, including any barcoded pressure-sensitive bundle label or optional endorsement line (OEL). When plastic bands, string, or rubber bands are used to secure bundles, the mailpiece can typically be divided into four areas formed by the crossing of the banding. Placing the delivery address in one of these four areas will ensure that no part of the address is obscured by the banding material. If the address cannot be placed within an area of the mailpiece not covered by banding, then mailers may secure their bundles using clear plastic banding or clear shrinkwrap, or use an optional bundle label (OBL).
        These standards do not apply to bundles of letter-size mail; bundles of First-Class flat-size mail; Customized Market Mail (CMM); bundles placed in 5-digit or 5-digit scheme (L001) sacks or pallets, carrier route or 5-digit carrier routes sacks; carrier route bundles entered at the Destination Delivery Unit (DDU); flats prepared in letter trays under DMM M033; or bundles containing an OBL.
        Clear Strapping and Shrinkwrap
        If plastic strapping intrudes on any element of the address or presort designation, the strapping must be clear to the degree that the address and presort designation remains visible and readable to the naked eye. The Postal Service recommends that the strapping be clear, meeting manufacturing standards of less than 70 percent haze in accordance with ASTM D1003, and not contain stripes, bands, seams, or texture marks that could obscure address characters despite a level of haze that is less than 70 percent overall. If a strap crossing intrudes on any portion of the address, the haze is measured through both straps.

        The Postal Service recommends any shrinkwrap used to secure bundles show less than 70 percent haze, as defined in ASTM D1003, after shrinkage. Any seam in the shrinkwrap (including any excess layers of the shrinkwrap) must not be located over any part of the address. There cannot be any blister, bloom, pimple, weld-mark, wrinkle, or other protrusion that would obscure any character in the address block.
        The Postal Service also recommends that any bundle consisting of multiple layers of packaging materials show less than 70 percent haze through all layers combined.
        Optional Bundle Label
        Consultation with industry representatives indicated it may be difficult to ensure address visibility on some existing packaging lines that use shrinkwrap or strapping. In these cases, mailers may use optional bundle labels (OBLs) to ensure machine readability. OBLs must include the correct optional endorsement line for the bundle, the words “OPTIONAL BUNDLE LABEL,” and the city, state, and ZIP Code of any mailpiece that could properly be in the bundle. To illustrate, if the OEL designates a 3-digit bundle, then any city, state, and ZIP Code combination within that 3-digit area will serve equally well to designate the 3-digit bundle destination. The OBL may be a permanent label or a removable label affixed to the bundle. Any removable label must remain securely attached during normal mail processing. The label cannot cover any portion of the delivery address unless it is attached to the outer shrinkwrap of the bundle. OBLs must not be affixed to the smallest surface of the bundle.
        Bundle Height
        The APPS equipment has cameras with OCR capability to read the address information on four sides of the bundle or parcel. These cameras are focused on only the top, bottom, left, and right sides of the bundle or parcel, and not on the leading end or trailing end of the bundle or parcel as it proceeds through the machine. The bundles or parcels are automatically inducted and routed through the machine, with the smallest surface of the bundle or parcel entering first, and will not be read by a camera if the address block of the top mailpiece is on that side. This process makes the dimension of the bundle or parcel and the location of the delivery address critical for processing on the APPS.
        Currently, parcels must have the delivery address located on one of the larger sides of the parcel. Since APPS inducts the mailpiece with the smallest surface first, it is important that the addresses on bundles of flats and irregular parcels also be located on one of the larger surfaces of the bundle or have an OBL affixed to one of those larger surfaces of the bundle. Some packages of small, thick flats or irregular parcels placed in bundles of 10 or more pieces contain the delivery address on the smallest surface of the bundle. To ensure that bundles of thick flats or irregular parcels can be processed on APPS, the height of the bundle must be at least 1 inch less than the longest dimension of the individual mailpiece, unless an OBL is affixed to one of the larger surfaces of the bundle. For example, a mailpiece measuring 7 inches long, 5 inches high, and 1/2 inch thick must be placed in bundles less than 6 inches high unless an OBL is used.
        Bundle Integrity
        The above restriction on bundle height is expected to improve bundle integrity. Nevertheless, bundle integrity remains critical for carrier route and presort bundles processed on the new high-speed APPS. Bundles breaking apart can create serious operational disruptions, and the debris from broken bundles, such as banding or shrinkwrap material, may block the optics or other mechanisms on the equipment and require manual intervention to clear the debris before resuming machine operation.
        Presort bundles must be able to withstand normal transit and handling without breakage or injury to employees. Even though string, twine, and rubber bands continue to be permitted at this time as an option to secure bundles, plastic strapping and shrinkwrap are the preferred methods for ensuring the integrity of bundles of irregular parcels and flat-size pieces. With today's standards, banding tension must be sufficient to tighten and depress the edges of the bundle so that banding does not shift and obstruct address information, as well as ensuring that mailpieces in the bundle do not slip out of the banding during transit and processing. As a rule of thumb, a bundle should withstand normal handling if it can be dropped on a corner of the bundle from a height of approximately 4 feet without breaking or becoming so deformed that pieces are likely to escape from the bundle. If the bundle breaks or the deformed bundle would cause the pieces to escape during processing, additional measures should be taken to maintain the bundle integrity.
        Proposed Implementation
        Recognizing that the mailing industry may have to change some procedures to ensure address visibility, the proposed implementation of these standards is April 1, 2005. Deployment of APPS began in August 2004 and will continue through October 2005.

        Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act [5 U.S.C. of 553(b), (c)] regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comment on the following proposed revisions to the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). See 39 CFR 111.1.

          List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111
          Postal Service.

          PART 111—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 111 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.

          2. Amend the following sections of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) as set forth below:
          M Mail Preparation and Sortation
          M000 General Preparation Standards
          M010 Mailpieces

          M013 Optional Endorsement Lines

          [Add new 4.0 to read as follows:]
          4.0 OPTIONAL BUNDLE LABEL
          4.1 Definition and Use
          An optional bundle label (OBL) is an adhesive label that provides presort destination information. When used, the label must be affixed to any surface other than the smallest surface of a presorted bundle.
          4.2 Label Characteristics

          The bundle label must be at least 11/4 inches high by 31/2 inches long. The label must be created with permanent adhesive or removable adhesive. Removable adhesive must not seep beyond the label and must be sufficient to keep the label affixed to the bundle without curling or peeling during normal mail processing. Labels must be white with printed information in black ink. The single-spaced lines of printed information must be in a non-narrow variant of Arial or Helvetica, in a range of 10- to 12-point type regardless of the font used in the delivery address on the mailpiece. The information must maintain a clearance of at least 1/25 inch from the top and bottom of the label and 1/8 inch from the left and right sides of the label.

          4.3 Required Information on Labels
          The OBL must show the following three lines:
          Line 1: Optional endorsement line (OEL), without ACS, following the formats in 2.0 and Exhibit 1.1.
          Line 2: “OPTIONAL BUNDLE LABEL.”
          Line 3: City, state, and 5-digit ZIP Code of any mailpiece that could properly be in the bundle.
          4.4 Placement
          The label must be placed parallel to an edge of the bundle without covering the address of the top mailpiece unless affixed over shrinkwrap securing the bundle. The label must not be placed on the smallest surface of the bundle or obscured by any material.

          M020 Bundles
          1.0 BASIC STANDARDS
          1.1 Facing
          [Revise 1.1 to read as follows:]

          Except as noted in 1.3, all pieces in a bundle must be “faced” (i.e., arranged with the addresses in the same read direction), with an address visible on the top piece.

          [Renumber current 1.2 through 1.9 as new 1.3 through 1.10. Add new 1.2 to read as follows:]
          1.2 Address Visibility
          Effective April 1, 2005, presort bundles prepared in sacks or on pallets must have the delivery address information visible and readable to the naked eye, including any barcoded pressure-sensitive bundle label or optional endorsement line. These standards do not apply to bundles of letter-size mail; bundles of First-Class flat-size mail; Customized Market Mail (CMM); bundles placed in 5-digit or 5-digit scheme (L001) sacks or pallets, or carrier route or 5-digit carrier routes sacks; carrier route bundles entered at the Destination Delivery Unit (DDU); bundles prepared in letter trays under M033 and all bundles containing an optional bundle label under M013.4.0. Except as provided in 1.5g, bundles of flats or irregular parcels with the delivery address on the smallest surface of the bundle must have an optional bundle label (OBL) affixed to a larger surface. Banding, shrinkwrap, barcoded pressure-sensitive package labels, or facing slips must not obscure any part of the delivery address on bundles covered by this standard.

          1.4 Labeling
          [Revise the fourth sentence in 1.4 to clarify that the delivery address must not be obscured by the presort bundle label, to read as follows:]

          * * * Bundle labels must not obscure the delivery address and must not be obscured by banding or shrinkwrap. * * *

          1.5 Securing Bundles—General

          [Add new item g to read as follows:]

          g. The height of a bundle of flats or irregular parcels must be at least 1 inch less than the longest dimension of the addressed side of any individual mailpiece in the bundle unless an optional bundle label (OBL) is affixed to a larger surface of the bundle.

          1.8 Bundle Size—Other Mail Classes
          [Revise the introductory sentence to replace “either” with “any” and add new item c to read as follows:]

          Except for Bound Printed Matter, an individual package may be prepared with fewer than the minimum number of pieces required by the standards for the rate claimed without loss of rate eligibility under any of these conditions:

          c. The height of the bundle would not be at least 1 inch less than the longest dimension under 1.5g.

          We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes if the proposal is adopted.

            Neva R. Watson,
            Attorney, Legislative.

      [FR Doc. 04-19992 Filed 9-1-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 7710-12-P


        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 1801, 1815, and 1852
        RIN 2700-AE35
        Remove NASA FAR Supplement Clause, Engineering Change Proposals (2016-N030)

          AGENCY:
          National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is proposing to amend the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to remove NFS clause 1852.243-70, Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) basic clause with its Alternate I & II and associated information collection from the NFS.

          DATES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before October 17, 2016 to be considered in formulation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit comments identified by NFS Case 2016-N030, using any of the following methods:

          ○ Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “NFS Case 2016-N030” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “NFS Case 2016-N030.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “NFS Case 2016-N030” on your attached document.
          ○ Email: andrew.orourke@nasa.gov. Include NFS Case 2016-N030 in the subject line of the message.
          ○ Fax: (202) 358-3082.
          ○ Mail: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Headquarters, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, Attn: Andrew O'Rourke, LP-011, Suite 5L32, 300 E. Street SW., Washington, DC 20546-0001.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Andrew O'Rourke, NASA, Office of Procurement, Contract and Grant Policy Division, Suite 5L32, 300 E. Street SW., Washington, DC 20456-0001. Telephone (202) 358-4560; facsimile (202) 358-3082; email: andrew.orourke@nasa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        NASA FAR Supplement clause 1852.243-70, Engineering Change Proposals, requires NASA contractors and vendors to submit contract change proposal information. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the collection of this information via OMB Control Number 2700-054 that expires on September 30, 2017. In processing the request for renewal of this information collection under OMB Control Number 2700-054 and as part of NASA's continuing retrospective review of existing regulations to reduce unnecessary, outdated and/or burdensome requirements, NASA Office of Procurement (OP) surveyed its procurement offices to ascertain whether or not NFS clause 1852.243-70, Engineering Change Proposals, was necessary. The results of the review indicated that NFS clause 1852.243-70 was no longer utilized in procurements. Instead, the FAR Changes clauses (FAR 52.243-1 through 52.243-5) were being utilized to process engineering change proposals in lieu of this NFS clause. Thus, NASA is proposing to delete NFS clause 1852.243-70, Engineering Change Proposals, with its Alternate I & II and the corresponding information collection under OMB Control Number 2700-054.
        II. Discussion
        NASA is proposing the following revisions to eliminate unnecessary NFS requirements:
        • Delete NFS segment 1843 and OMB Control Number 2700-054 from 1801.106-1.
        • Remove the prescription at NFS 1843.205-70(a).
        • Delete NFS clause 1852.243-70, Engineering Change Proposals.
        III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        NASA does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because we are removing a NFS clause and its associated information collection requirements for contractors. By removing this clause, the information collection requirement on contractors will be eliminated, thus providing all entities, both large and small, with a positive benefit. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:
        In preparing the request for renewal of this information collection under OMB Control Number 2700-054 and as part of NASA's continuing retrospective review of existing regulations to reduce unnecessary, outdated and/or burdensome requirements, NASA Office of Procurement its procurement offices to ascertain whether or not NFS clause 1852.243-70, Engineering Change Proposals, was necessary. The results of the review indicated that NFS clause 1852.243-70 was no longer utilized in procurements. Instead, the FAR changes clauses were being utilized to process engineering change proposals in lieu of this NFS clause. Thus, NASA is proposing to delete NFS clause 1852.243-70, Engineering Change Proposals, with its Alternate I & II and the corresponding information collection under OMB Control Number 2700-054. This proposed rule does not include any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small businesses. The proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No alternative approaches were considered.
        NASA invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
        NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (NFS case 2016-N030) in correspondence.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C chapter 35); however, the proposed changes to the NFS would remove the information collection requirements previously approved under OMB Control Number 2700-0054, entitled NFS 1843 Contract Modifications for Engineering Change Proposals (ECP).

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1801, 1843, and 1852
          Government procurement.

          Manuel Quinones,
          NASA FAR Supplement Manager.

        Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1801, 1843, and 1852 are proposed to be amended as follows:
        1. The authority citation for parts 1801, 1843 and 1852 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          51 U.S.C. 20113(a) and 48 CFR chapter 1.

          PART 1801—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM

        2. Revise Section 1801.106 to read as follows:

          1801.106
          OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
          The following OMB control numbers apply:

              NFS segment
              OMB Control No.

              1823
              2700-0089

              1827
              2700-0052

              1852.223-70
              2700-0160

              NF 533
              2700-0003

              NF 1018
              2700-0017

          PART 1843—CONTRACT MODIFICATIONS

        3. Revise Section 1843.205-70 to read as follows:

          1843.205-70
          NASA contract clauses.
          The contracting officer may insert a clause substantially as stated at 1852.243-72, Equitable Adjustments, in solicitations and contracts for—
          (a) Dismantling, demolishing, or removing improvements; or
          (b) Construction, when the contract amount is expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold and a fixed-price contract is contemplated.

          PART 1852—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

            1852.243-70
            [Removed and reserved]

        4. Section 1852.243-70 is removed and reserved.

          1852.243-72
          [Amended]

        5. Amend section 1852.243-72 by removing “1843.205-70(b)” and adding “1843.205-70” in its place in the introductory text.

      [FR Doc. 2016-19566 Filed 8-16-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 7510-13-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 216
        [Docket No. 000801223-0223-01; I.D. 062000A]
        RIN 0648-AO24
        Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Operation of a Low Frequency Sound Source by the North Pacific Acoustic Laboratory

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; receipt of an application for a small take exemption; request for comment and information.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS has received a request from the University of California San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Scripps), for a small take of marine mammals incidental to the continued operation of a low frequency (LF) sound source previously installed off the north shore of Kauai by the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) project.  As a result of that request, NMFS is considering whether to propose regulations that would authorize the incidental taking of a small number of marine mammals.  In order to issue regulations for this taking, NMFS must determine that this taking will have no more than a negligible impact on the affected species and stocks of marine mammals.  NMFS invites comment on the application and suggestions on the content of the regulations.

          DATES:
          Comments and information must be postmarked no later than September 25, 2000.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments should be addressed to Donna Wieting, Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226.  A copy of the application, which contains the references used in this document, may be obtained by writing to this address, or by telephoning the contact listed here (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).  A copy of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) may be obtained from Marine Acoustics Inc., 809 Aquidneck Ave., Middletown, RI 02842, attn. Kathy Vigness Reposa, 401-847-7508.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kenneth R. Hollingshead (301) 713-2055, ext. 128.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) (MMPA) directs the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and regulations are issued.
        Permission may be granted for periods of 5 years or less if the Secretary finds that the taking will be small, will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for Arctic Ocean subsistence uses, and if regulations are prescribed setting forth the permissible methods of taking and the requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking.
        Summary of Request

        On May 21, 2000, NMFS received an application for an incidental, small take authorization under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA from Scripps to take marine mammals incidental to the continued operation of a LF sound source previously installed off the north shore of Kauai by the ATOC project.  An alternative source location under consideration in the DEIS and here is for Midway Island.  A final decision on whether to re-use the ATOC source (or to install a new source and cable at Midway), in order to combine a second phase of research on the feasibility and value of large-scale acoustic thermometry with long range underwater sound transmission studies and marine mammal monitoring and studies will be made based, in part, on findings and determinations made under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  As the principal funding agency for the proposed action, a DEIS has been prepared by the Office of Naval Research (ONR).  NMFS is a cooperating agency in the preparation of this DEIS.
        Project Description
        Acoustic thermometry is a method for obtaining information about the temperature field in the ocean from precise measurements of the travel times of sound pulses transmitted through the ocean.  It is also a technique for acoustic remote sensing of the ocean interior, in which the properties of the ocean between the acoustic sources and receivers are determined, rather than the properties of the ocean at the instruments as is the case for conventional thermometers and current meters.  Acoustic thermometry in the ocean is closely related to seismology, in which properties of the Earth’s interior are inferred from travel times of earthquake waves.
        Under the proposed action, the seabed power cable and sound source from the ATOC project would remain in their present locations on Kauai, and transmissions would continue with approximately the same signal parameters and transmission schedule used in the earlier ATOC project.  The typical schedule consists of six 20-minute (min) transmissions (one every 4 hours), every fourth day, with each transmission preceded by a 5-min ramp-up period during which the signal intensity was gradually increased, representing an average duty cycle of 2 percent.  With the possible exception of short duration testing with duty cycles of up to 8 percent, or equipment failure, this schedule would continue for a period of 5 years.  The signals transmitted by the source would have a center frequency of 75 Hertz (Hz) and a bandwidth of approximately 35 Hz (i.e., sound transmissions are in the frequency band of 57.5-92.5 Hz).  Approximately 260 watts of acoustic power would be radiated during transmission.  At 1 meter (m)(33 feet (ft)) from the source (at 807 m (2,648 ft) water depth at the Kauai location), sound intensity (i.e., source level) would be about 195 decibels (dB) referenced to the intensity of a signal with a sound pressure level (SPL) of 1 microPascal (1 μPa).  According to Scripps, the signal parameters and source level have been found in the ATOC project to provide adequate, but not excessive, signal-to-noise ratios in the receiver ranges of interest.
        While the proposed action involves the continued operation of the source installed at the Kauai, HI location, an alternative location under consideration in the ONR DEIS would be installing a sound source and cable at a location off the coast of Midway Island.
        Marine Mammals
        A summary of the marine mammal species that may potentially be found in the vicinity of the ATOC source at either Kauai or Midway is presented here.  For more detail on marine mammal abundance, density and the methods used to obtain this information, reviewers are requested to refer to the ONR DEIS.  For general information on North Pacific Ocean marine mammals, reviewers may refer to Barlow et al. (1997).
        Six species of baleen whales, humpback (Megaptera novaengliae), fin Balaenoptera physalus), blue B. musculus), Bryde’sB. borealis), minke (B. acutorostrata), and right (Eubalaena glacialis) whales, may occur in the Kauai or Midway Atoll areas.  Although not reported near Midway Atoll, the humpback whale is the only balaenopterid whale known to be present in reasonably large numbers.  Humpback whales are considered abundant in coastal waters of the main Hawaiian Islands from November through April.  Fin whales and blue whales have the potential to occur in the area; however, their distribution and abundance in the region is believed to be uncommon (Balcomb, 1987), although only a single fin whale was observed during recent ATOC marine mammal research.  Right whales in the North Pacific Ocean are extremely rare and therefore, would also be rare in the Hawaiian Islands.  Bryde’s whales, and minke whales may be occasionally seen in the area of Midway Atoll (Leatherwood et al., 1988), but are not usually found off Kauai.

        Sixteen species of odontocetes (toothed whales, dolphins and porpoises) may be found in the Kauai and Midway areas.  These species are sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus), beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris, Berardius bairdi, and Mesoplodon spp.), spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris), spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata), striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis), pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps), dwarf sperm whale (Kogia simus), killer whales (Orcinus orca), false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata), and melon-headed whale (Peponocephala electra).  It should be noted, however, that the latter 7 species were not sighted in or near the proposed Kauai area during marine mammal surveys conducted between 1993 and 1998.
        The Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi) occurs in the area of the Leeward Hawaiian Islands.
        Potential Impacts on Marine Mammals
        The effects of underwater noise on marine mammals are highly variable, and can be categorized as follows (based on Richardson et al., 1995): (1) The noise may be too weak to be heard at the location of the animal (i.e. lower than the prevailing ambient noise level, the hearing threshold of the animal at relevant frequencies, or both); (2) the noise may be audible but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral response; (3) the noise may elicit behavioral reactions of variable conspicuousness and variable relevance to the well being of the animal; these can range from subtle effects on respiration or other behaviors (detectable only by statistical analysis) to active avoidance reactions; (4) upon repeated exposure, animals may exhibit diminishing responsiveness (habituation), or disturbance effects may persist (the latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable in characteristics, unpredictable in occurrence, and associated with situations that the animal perceives as a threat); (5) any man-made noise that is strong enough to be heard has the potential to reduce (mask) the ability of marine mammals to hear natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from conspecifics and/or echolocation sounds, and environmental sounds such as ice or surf noise; and (6) very strong sounds have the potential to cause either a temporary or a permanent reduction in hearing sensitivity (referred to respectively as temporary threshold shift (TTS) or permanent threshold shift (PTS).  Few data on the effects of non-explosive sounds on hearing thresholds of marine mammals have been obtained, however, in terrestrial mammals, and presumably in marine mammals, received sound levels must far exceed the animal's hearing threshold for there to be any TTS.  Received levels must be even higher for there to be risk of PTS.

        For this project, Scripps has established the threshold for risk of harm as a single ping at 180 dB re 1 μParms (180 dB).  Harm is defined in this context as onset TTS, or the lower end of Level A harassment.  Although recently some scientists have questioned whether TTS is actually an injury (see Navy, 1999, Appendix E-1, Criteria for Marine Mammal Auditory Shift), in this action, TTS is being categorized as the onset for a Level A harassment take.  In this proposed action, a marine mammal would have to receive one ping greater than, or equal to 180 dB in order to be considered receiving a non-serious injury (Level A harassment) or many pings at a received level (RL) slightly lower than 180 dB in order to potentially incur a significant biological response (Level B harassment).
        In order to understand the biological significance of the risk of Level A or Level B harassment, it is necessary to determine how this risk might affect a population of marine mammals, starting with acoustic criteria.  First, the marine mammal must be able to hear LF sound.  Second, the animal must incur a reaction to the LF sound that is more than momentary.  Third, any effect from LF sound must involve a significant behavioral change in a biologically important activity, such as feeding, breeding, or migration, all of which are potentially important for reproductive success of the population.
        Based on California and Hawaii ATOC Marine Mammal Research Program (MMRP), Scripps found no overt or obvious short-term changes (1) in the abundance and distribution of marine mammals in response to the ATOC transmissions (intensive statistical analyses of aerial survey data showed some subtle shifts in distribution of humpback (and possibly sperm) whales away from the California site (Calambokidis et al., 1998) and humpback whales away from the Kauai site); (2) in the behavior of humpback whales or elephant seals in response to the playback of ATOC-like sounds (intensive statistical analyses revealed some subtle changes in the behavior of humpback whales (Frankel and Clark, 1998; 1999b); or (3) in the singing behavior of humpback whales in the vicinity of the Kauai ATOC sound source.  Bioacoustic experts concluded that these subtle effects would not adversely affect the survival of an individual whale or the status of the North Pacific humpback whale population (Frankel and Clark, 1999a).
        To assess the potential environmental impact of the North Pacific Acoustic Laboratory (NPAL) sound source on marine mammals, it was necessary for Scripps to predict the sound field that a given marine mammal species could be exposed to over time.  This is a multi-part process involving (1) the ability to measure or estimate an animal’s location in space and time, (2) the ability to measure or estimate the three-dimensional sound field at these times and locations, (3) the integration of these two data sets to estimate the potential impact of the sound field on a specific animal in the modeled population, (4) the conversion of the resultant cumulative exposures for a modeled population into an estimate of the risk from a prolonged disruption of a biologically important behavior, and (5) the conversion of these estimates of behavioral risk into an assessment of risk in terms of the level of potential biological removal.
        Next, a relationship for converting the resultant cumulative exposures for a modeled population into an estimate of the risk to the entire population of a prolonged disruption of a biologically important behavior and of injury was developed.  This process assessed risk in relation to RL and repeated exposure.  The resultant "risk continuum" is based on the assumption that the threshold of risk is variable and occurs over a range of conditions rather than at a single threshold.
        Taken together, the recent results on marine mammals from LF sounds, the acoustical modeling, and the risk assessment, provide an estimate of potential environmental impacts to marine mammals.
        The acoustical modeling process was accomplished by Scripps using the U.S. Navy’s standard acoustical performance prediction transmission loss model-Parabolic Equation (PE) version 3.4.  The results of this model are the primary input to the Acoustic Integration Model (AIM).  AIM was used in this analysis to estimate mammal sound exposures and integrate simulated characteristics of marine mammals (e.g., species distribution, density, dive profiles, and general movement, NPAL sound transmissions (e.g., duty cycle, transmission length), and the predicted sound field for each transmission to estimate acoustic exposure during a typical NPAL source transmission.  A description of the PE and AIM models (including AIM input parameters for animal movement, diving behavior, and marine mammal distribution, abundance, and density) and the risk continuum analysis are described in detail in the Scripps application and the ONR DEIS and are not discussed further in this document.  At this time, NMFS recommends reviewers read these documents if additional information is desired.  If NMFS proceeds with rulemaking on this action, that rulemaking document will discuss the risk continuum and estimates of affected marine mammal populations in greater detail.
        Scripps, however, has drawn some general conclusions from the relative abundance of various marine mammal species in relationship to the NPAL sound field.  Under the proposed alternative (utilizing the ATOC sound source at Kauai), the only mysticete (baleen) whale species expected in the area in substantial numbers is the humpback whale, and Scripps believes that because they usually prefer nearshore locations (inside the 100-fathom (188 m) depth contour), few are expected to be exposed to received levels greater than 120 dB (i.e, the SPL level presumed by Scripps to be zero for marine mammals having the potential to incur a prolonged disturbance of biologically important behavior).  Similarly, sperm whales are the most common deep-diving odontocete (toothed) whale in the area, but because they usually prefer offshore waters (i.e., water depths greater than 4,000 m (12,700 ft)), few are expected to be exposed to received levels greater than 120 dB.  According to Scripps, these distributional preferences are supported by the Kauai ATOC MMRP (Mobley, 1999a).
        Using the risk continuum and acoustic modeling Scripps estimated the potential for biologically significant reactions by marine mammals under the proposed action.  Scripps determined that only humpback whales that remain in the vicinity of the sound source for a full day of transmissions may potentially experience any effect from the source transmissions.  However, humpback whales typically travel parallel to the coast of Kauai, and, therefore, Scripps believes, would probably not receive sound from more than a single transmission.
        At the Midway site, the mysticete whale expected in greatest abundance is the Bryde’s whale.  Because they usually prefer nearshore locations, Scripps expects few animals would be exposed to RLs greater than 120 dB.  Similarly, sperm whales are the most common deep-diving odontocetes in the area, but because they usually prefer offshore waters (i.e., water depths greater than 4,000 m (12,700 ft)), few are expected to be exposed to received levels greater than 120 dB.  A much higher abundance of Hawaiian monk seals is expected near Midway Island than Kauai since this species prefers the small, mostly uninhabited chain of islands and atolls northwest of the main Hawaiian Islands.
        Using the risk continuum and acoustic modeling Scripps determined that there would be no potential for biologically significant effects on marine mammals from source transmissions at Midway Island, although some subtle effects may occur.
        Mitigation

        Scripps' proposed action includes mitigation that would minimize the potential effects of the NPAL sound source to marine mammals.  First, the sound source would operate at the minimum duty cycle necessary to support the large-scale acoustic thermometry and long-range propagation objectives.  Transmissions would contiue with approximately the same transmission schedule as that used during the first feasibility phase of the ATOC study.  Second, any increases in the duty cycle beyond the nominal 2 percent (with a maximum of 8 percent) would not occur during the peak humpback whale season (January-April).  The proposed action includes the possibility of an 8-percent duty cycle for up to 2 months out of each year; this action, however, would not occur during the period of time humpback whales inhabit Hawaiian waters.  Third, the sound source would operate at the minimum power level necessary to support large-scale acoustic thermometry and long-range sound transmission objectives.  The fourth mitigation measure proposed is to ramp-up the NPAL sound source transmissions over a 5-min period.  This is believed to reduce the potential for startling marine mammals in the vicinity of the NPAL sound source and provides them an opportunity to move away from the sound source before transmitting at the maximum power levels.
        Monitoring and Reporting
        In an effort to understand the potential for long-term effects of man-made sound on marine mammals, Scripps proposes to monitor the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of the sound source, by conducting a total of 4 aerial surveys during each humpback whale season.  The data collected will be compared with data collected during the Kauai ATOC Marine Mammal Research Program.  Reports on the aerial survey results will be  available to the public in reports.  A report on activites will be provided to NMFS annually.
        NEPA
        The ONR has released a DEIS under NEPA (see ADDRESSES).  NMFS is a cooperating agency, as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1501.6), in the preparation of this DEIS.
        Endangered Species Act (ESA)
        NMFS will be consulting with the ONR under section 7 of the ESA on this action.  In that regard, the ONR has submitted to NMFS a Biological Assessment under the ESA.  This consultation will be concluded prior to a determination on issuance of a final rule and exemption.
        Classification
        This action has been determined to be not significant under Executive Order 12866.
        Information Solicited
        NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning the request and the structure and content of the regulations to allow the taking.  NMFS requests that commenters review the ONR DEIS and/or Scripps’ small take application and not submit comments based solely on this document.  NMFS will consider information submitted in developing proposed regulations to authorize the taking.  If NMFS proposes regulations to allow this take, interested parties will be given ample time and opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

          Dated:  August 15, 2000.
          Penelope D. Dalton,
          Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-21679  Filed 8-23-00; 8:45 am]
      Billing Code: 3510-22-S
    - --  - -  - -


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011; FRL-8471-4]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent to delete the Tabernacle Drum Dump Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 is issuing this notice of intent to delete the Tabernacle Drum Dump Superfund Site (Site), located in Tabernacle Township, Burlington County, New Jersey from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this action. The NPL is Appendix B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 300, which the EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended. The EPA and the State of New Jersey, through the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, have determined that responsible parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required. No further operation and maintenance activities or five-year reviews are required at this site.

          DATES:
          Comments concerning this site may be submitted on or before October 24, 2007.

          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.
          • E-mail:
            tomchuk.doug@epa.gov.

          • Fax: (212) 637-4429.
          • Mail: Douglas Tomchuk, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor,  New York, NY 10007-1866.
          • Hand delivery: Douglas Tomchuk, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866.
          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-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 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 to 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 statute. 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:

          EPA Region 2 Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, Room 1828, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4308, Hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.,  Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, by appointment only.
          Information on the Site is also available for viewing at the Site's information repository located at:  Tabernacle Municipal Building, 163 Carranza Road, Tabernacle, New Jersey 08088.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Douglas Tomchuk, Remedial Project Manager,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2,  290 Broadway, 19th Floor,  New York, NY 10007-1866, Telephone: (212) 637-3956, Fax: (212) 637-4429, E-mail: tomchuk.doug@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Table of Contents
          I. Introduction
          II. NPL Deletion Criteria
          III. Deletion Procedures
          IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletions

        I. Introduction
        The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region II announces its intent to delete the Tabernacle Drum Dump, located on Carranza Road in Tabernacle Township, Burlington County, New Jersey, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, 40 CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of CERCLA, as amended. The 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 those sites. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substances Superfund Response Trust Fund (Fund). Pursuant to § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if conditions at the site warrant such action.

        The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

        Section II of this notice explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses how the site meets the deletion criteria.
        II. NPL Deletion Criteria
        The NCP establishes the criteria the Agency uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e)(l)(i)-(iii), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making this determination, EPA shall 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; or
        (ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been implemented and no further cleanup 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, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
        Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, EPA will conduct site remedy reviews every five years to ensure that the implemented remedy protects public health and the environment. If new information becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may initiate remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the site may be restored to the NPL without the application of the Hazardous Ranking System.
        III. Deletion Procedures
        The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of this site:
        (1) EPA selected a remedy for this site in a June 30, 1988 Record of Decision (ROD).
        (2) The Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) have completed a comprehensive cleanup at the site. The work included the removal and off-site disposal of drums, other containers, contaminated liquids and contaminated soil. Contaminated ground water was extracted, treated and then re-injected into the ground. The ground water cleanup was verified by a monitoring program that lasted five years. In addition, the property where the ground water treatment system was located has been restored in accordance with an approved Site Restoration Plan. No further remedial action is necessary at the Tabernacle Drum Dump site to ensure protection of human health and the environment.
        (3) All appropriate responses under CERCLA have been documented in the Final Close Out Report dated June 6, 2007.
        (4) The State of New Jersey, through the Department of Environmental Protection, has concurred with the proposed deletion decision;
        (5) 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 for EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete; and
        (6) All relevant documents have been made available for public review in the local Site information repositories.
        Deletion of the Site 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. As mentioned in section II of this Notice, § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions.
        For deletion of this Site, EPA's Region 2 office will accept and evaluate public comments on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the Agency will prepare a Responsiveness Summary, which will address any significant public comments received during the public comment period.

        The deletion occurs when the EPA Regional Administrator places a final notice in the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect any 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 Region 2 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 and the Agency's finding that the criteria in 40 CFR 300.425(e) are satisfied:
        (A) Site History
        The Tabernacle Drum Dump is located in Tabernacle Township, Burlington County, New Jersey. The Site is a wooded one-acre parcel of undeveloped land, bordered to the northwest by farmland and to the south and east by residential properties. The Site is located in the northern region of the New Jersey Pinelands.
        Between 1977 and 1984 Atlantic Disposal Services, Inc., (ADS) disposed of approximately 200 containers on the property. The containers included 55-gallon drums, 5-gallon paint cans and 20-gallon containers, which held solvents, paint sludges and heavy metals. Deterioration and leakage of some of the containers resulted in visible contamination of the soils, and ultimately, contamination of ground water underlying and downgradient of the Site.
        In September 1983, the Tabernacle Drum Dump site was proposed to the NPL, and the site was approved for inclusion on the NPL in September 1984.
        (B) Immediate Actions
        In February 1984, EPA issued an administrative order to ADS to perform a surface cleanup of the site, along with certain investigations of ground water contamination. ADS completed the surface cleanup of the site in July 1984, which consisted of removing the containers found at the site, 40 cubic yards of material from the drums, eight truck loads of excavated contaminated soil and approximately 3,000 gallons of liquid material. However, ADS did not implement the investigations of the subsurface soils or ground water.
        (C) Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
        EPA conducted a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the site, beginning with preliminary sampling in July 1985. The Remedial Investigation report found chromium, cyanide and lead in the surface soils above background levels, but below New Jersey soil cleanup levels. In the groundwater, cadmium, chromium, lead, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane were found exceeding background levels and Applicable or Revelant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). The Remedial Investigation was completed in December 1987.
        (D) Selected Remedy
        Based on the RI/FS, EPA selected a remedy for the Site in a Record of Decision (ROD) which was signed on June 30, 1988, which included the following major elements:
        • Installation of additional ground-water monitoring wells to further delineate the extent of the contaminant plume;
        • Implementation of a ground water monitoring program for downgradient residential wells to delineate the contaminant plume;

        • Additional soil sampling at the former drum dumping and storage area to confirm previous data which indicated only trace levels of contaminants;

        • Extraction of the contaminated ground water through pumping followed by on-site treatment and reinjection of the treated effluent into the ground, until federal and state cleanup standards have been attained to the maximum extent practicable; and
        • Implementation of a ground water monitoring program for a period of five years after site cleanup goals have been achieved.
        (E) Remedial Actions
        The cleanup of the Site was completed through various remedial actions including the removal and off-site disposal of drums, containers and contaminated surface soils, and the extraction of contaminated ground water with treatment and re-injection. The sampling in the former drum dump and storage area, subsequent to the removal action, found only trace levels of contaminants remaining in surface and subsurface soils at the Site (below NJDEP Cleanup Standards for contaminated sites (N.J.A.C. 7:26D)), and therefore no further action was warranted for the soil. The pump and treat system was constructed and subsequently ran from August 30, 1993 to June 21, 1997 at a rate of approximately 7,000,000 gallons per month (160 gallons per minute). The cleanup levels specified in the ROD were 26 parts per billion (ppb) for 1,1,1-trichlorethane and 2 ppb for 1,1-dichloroethene. A post-construction monitoring program was conducted between July 1997 and July 2001, and found no detections of 1,1,1-trichloroethane in the designated monitoring wells above the detection limit of 1 ppb after October 1999, and no detections above the detection limit of 1 ppb of 1,1 dichloroethene during the post-construction monitoring period.
        (F) Operation and Maintenance
        There are no operations, maintenance or monitoring activities remaining to be performed. All remedial activities, including monitoring, are complete and the site poses no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. The property utilized for ground water treatment has been restored. All structures and underground piping have been removed, all wells have been properly sealed and vegetation has been re-established. Monitoring of the new plantings and seeding will occur for three growing seasons in accordance with an approved Site Restoration Plan.
        (G) Five Year Review
        A Five-year review of the selected remedy for the Site was signed on September 10, 1998. It found that there are no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at this site above levels that would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The remedy was found to protect public health and the environment and was likely to remain so. No further five-year reviews required and no other engineered, access or institutional controls are needed.
        (H) Community Involvement
        Public participation activities for the Tabernacle Drum Dump site have been satisfied as required in CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. The RI/FS, the ROD, as well as other documents and information that EPA relied on or considered in recommending that no further action is necessary at the Tabernacle Drum Dump Site, and that the site should be deleted from the NPL, are available for the public to review at the information repositories.
        (I) Site Meets Deletion Criteria
        One of the three criteria for deletion specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if EPA, in consultation with the State, has determined that responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; 40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(i).
        EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New Jersey, through the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, believes that this criterion for deletion has been met. Consequently, EPA is proposing deletion of this site from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are available at the information repositories in the deletion docket.
        In a letter dated August 30, 2006, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection concurred with EPA that all appropriate CERCLA response actions have been completed at the Tabernacle Drum Dump site and protection of human health and the environment has been achieved.

          Dated: August 17, 2007.
          Alan Steinberg,
          Regional Administrator, Region 2.

      [FR Doc. E7-18579 Filed 9-21-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P