Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules 26803

Division, Montana Department of

Environmental Quality, Metcalf

Building, 1520 East Sixth Ave., Helena,

Montana 59620, Phone: 406/444–1430;

and U.S. EPA Region VIII, Montana

Office, 301 S. Park, Federal Building,

Helena, MT 59626, Phone: 406/441–

1130 ext 239.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

Finke, Waste and Toxics Team Leader,

U.S. EPA, 301 S. Park, Drawer 10096,

Helena, MT 59626, Phone: (406) 441–

1130 ext 239, or Kris Shurr, EPA Region

VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver,

Colorado 80202–2466, phone number:

(303) 312–6139.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information, please see the

immediate final rule published in the

‘‘Rules’’ section of this Federal Register.

Dated: April 28, 2000.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 00–11422 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6602–9]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the

Chemform, Inc. Site from the National

Priorities List (NPL); request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), Region 4, announces its

intent to delete the Chemform, Inc.

Superfund Site in Pompano Beach,

Broward County, Florida, from the

National Priorities List (NPL) and

requests public comment on this

proposed action. The NPL constitutes

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 to 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. EPA and the

Florida Department of Environmental

Protection (FDEP) have determined that

all appropriate response actions under

CERCLA have been implemented and

that no further response action is

appropriate. Moreover, EPA and FDEP

have determined that the response

actions conducted at the Site to date

have been protective of public health,

welfare, and the environment.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

deletion from the NPL should be

submitted no later than June 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Mr. Jamey Watt, Remedial Project

Manager, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,

S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303–3104.

Comprehensive information on this

Site is available through the EPA Region

4 public docket, which is located at

EPA’s Region 4 office and is available

for viewing by appointment from 8:00

a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding holidays. Requests for

appointments or copies of the

background information from the

regional public docket should be

directed to the EPA Region 4 docket

office.

The address for the regional docket

office is: Record Center, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth

Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–

3104, Phone: (404) 562–9530.

Background information from the

regional public docket also is available

for viewing at the Site information

repository located at: Broward County

Main Library, Government Documents,

100 South Andrews Avenue, N.E., Fort

Lauderdale, Florida 33301.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Jamey Watt, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street

S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–3104,

(404) 562–8920.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents:

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

EPA, Region 4, announces its intent to

delete the Chemform, Inc. Superfund

Site from the NPL, which constitutes

Appendix B of the NCP, and requests

comments on this proposed deletion.

EPA identifies sites on the NPL 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 Substances Superfund

Trust Fund (Fund). Pursuant to 40 CFR

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.

EPA will accept comments

concerning this Site for 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 that

the Agency uses to delete sites from the

NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR

300.425(e), sites may be deleted from or

recategorized on the NPL when no

further response is appropriate. In

making this determination, EPA will

consider, in consultation with the State,

whether any of the following criteria

have been met:

• Responsible parties or other persons

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required; or

• All appropriate Fund-financed

responses under CERCLA have been

implemented, and no further response

action by responsible parties is

appropriate; or

• 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.

CERCLA Section 121 (c), 42 U.S.C.

9621 (c), provides that 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’s policy is that a

subsequent review of the site will be

conducted at least every five years after

the initiation of the remedial action at

the site to ensure that the site remains

protective of public health and the

environment. The OU1 ROD signed on

September 22, 1992, as amended by the

Explanation of Significant Differences

(ESD) signed on April 2, 1999, calls for

such Five-Year Review events at the

Site. Each Five-Year Review will

examine the institutional controls

identified at the Site and allow for

additional ground water monitoring if

necessary. Five-Year Reviews will

continue until Site ground water meets

maximum concentration limits (MCLs).

The OU2 ROD selected remedy which

addressed soil contamination did not

require Five-Year Review events.

Through soil excavation and removal

actions, no hazardous substances

remained in on-site soils above healthbased levels. If new information

becomes available that indicates a need

for further action, EPA may initiate a

remedial action. 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 Hazard Ranking System.

26804 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules

III. Deletion Procedures

EPA, Region 4, will accept and

evaluate public comments before

making a final decision on deletion from

the NPL. Comments from the local

community may be the most pertinent

to deletion decisions. The following

procedures were used for the intended

deletion of this Site:

• EPA has recommended deletion

and has prepared the relevant

documents;

• The State has concurred with the

deletion decision;

• Concurrent with this Notice of

Intent to Delete, notices have been

published in local newspapers and have

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;

• EPA has made all relevant

documents available at the information

repositories; and

• EPA will respond to significant

comments, if any, submitted during the

public comment period.

Deletion of the Site from the NPL does

not itself, create, alter, or revoke any

individual rights or obligations. The

NPL is designed primarily for

informational purposes to assist Agency

management. As mentioned in section II

of this document, 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3)

provides that deletion of a site from the

NPL does not preclude eligibility for

future Fund-financed response actions

nor does it preclude future State action

pursuant to State law.

The comments received on EPA’s

Notice of Intent to Delete during the

notice and comment period will be

evaluated by EPA before making the

final decision to delete. EPA will

prepare a Responsiveness Summary, if

necessary, which will address the

comments received during the public

comment period.

A deletion occurs when the EPA

Regional Administrator places a Notice

of Deletion in the Federal Register. Any

deletions from the NPL will be reflected

in the next NPL update. Public notices

and copies of the Responsiveness

Summary, if necessary, will be made

available to local residents by the

Regional office.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

The following Site summary provides

the EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site

from the NPL.

The four-acre Chemform, Inc. Site lies

in a highly industrialized section of

northeastern Broward County, Pompano

Beach, Florida. Chemform, Inc. operated

as a certified repair and refurbishment

station of turbine engine components for

the aerospace industry. Chemform, Inc.

also helped design, manufacture, and

market electrochemical machines for

other industries in metal parts

manufacturing.

In 1977, a Broward County Pollution

Control Board inspector found

Chemform, Inc. had violated county

regulations by discharging industrial

wastes (oily liquid and sludge) onto the

ground. EPA conducted a site screening

investigation in August 1985. In July

1986, an EPA contractor conducted a

sampling investigation. This

investigation found the main source

area of contamination to be composed of

inorganics in the soil. After evaluating

the sampling results, EPA proposed the

Site for the NPL on June 24, 1988. On

October 4, 1989, the Chemform, Inc. Site

was promulgated onto the NPL.

The Chemform, Inc. Site was divided

into two Operable Units (OUs).

Operable Unit 1 (OU1) addresses ground

water contamination. Operable Unit 2

(OU2) addresses contaminated soils.

There is a Record of Decision (ROD) for

each operable unit. The OU1 ROD was

signed on September 22, 1992 and

documented a selected remedy of ‘‘No

Action with Monitoring’’ for the ground

water. The September 16, 1993 OU2

ROD selected remedy for soil was ‘‘No

Further Action’’ due to previous soil

removal operations.

The ‘‘No Action with Monitoring’’

selected remedy for OU1 was based on

the Remedial Investigation results and

risk assessment, which indicated no

remediation of ground water was

needed at the Site. This was due to soil

and waste removal actions in 1992

designed to eliminate the potential for

inorganic constituents to leach from

surface and subsurface soils into the

ground water. The OU1 ROD called for

quarterly ground water monitoring of

the contaminants of concern (COCs) for

no less than one year. The COCs

identified in the OU1 ROD were

selected based upon their toxicological

properties, concentrations and

frequency of occurrence during the OU1

Remedial Investigation.

Post-ROD quarterly ground water

monitoring of the COCs occurred from

October 1993 to July 1994. Additional

necessary ground water sampling

occurred at the Site and is documented

in the ESD signed on April 2, 1999. All

post-ROD ground water monitoring

results revealed that concentrations for

the COCs were below Florida primary

drinking water standards. However, as

documented in the OU1 ESD, the

presence of vinyl chloride in some postROD ground water samples resulted in

the initiation of Five-Year Review

events. Vinyl chloride was not

identified as a COC in the OU1 ROD.

The Five-Year Reviews will monitor

current institutional controls and allow

for ground water sampling if necessary

to ensure that the Site remains

protective of human health and the

environment.

The OU2 ROD addressed soil

contamination. Soil characterization at

the Site began with the OU1 Remedial

Investigation in October 1989 and

continued through the Removal Action

in June 1992. Contaminant levels were

substantially reduced by soil and source

area cleanup activities, which

Chemform, Inc. conducted under EPA

oversight. More than 2,000 cubic yards

of contaminated surface and subsurface

soils were excavated. Confirmatory

sampling of surface and subsurface soils

revealed Soil Cleanup Levels (SCLs) for

inorganics under the Removal Action

had been reached.

As part of the OU2 soil removal

actions at the Site, a septic tank system

was excavated and disposed of off-site

in June 1992. Testing of the tank

contents showed the presence of

trichloroethene (TCE) and related

organic compounds. Concerns over

potential ground water contamination

from these compounds led to additional

ground water sampling subsequent to

the post-ROD quarterly ground water

sampling. This further sampling

revealed the presence of one TCE

related compound, vinyl chloride,

which was not targeted as a COC in the

OU1 ROD, above the MCL. The events

and results are summarized in the ESD.

Due to the presence of vinyl chloride

above the MCL, the ESD documents the

need for Five-Year Reviews to be

performed at the Site. The presence of

vinyl chloride does not indicate a

current health threat at the Site. Public

water supply lines service the Site and

surrounding area. State and local

ground water use controls prevent a

future exposure route from occurring. A

Five-Year Review policy will verify

existing ground water use controls and,

as determined necessary by EPA,

continue ground water monitoring.

Applicable Deletion Criteria

One of the three criteria for site

deletion, 40 CFR 300.425(e)(l)(ii),

specifies that EPA may delete a site

from the NPL if ‘‘all appropriate FundFinanced Response under CERCLA has

been implemented, and no further

response action by responsible parties is

appropriate.’’ EPA, with the

concurrence of FDEP, believes that this

criterion for deletion has been met and

the Site is protective of human health

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules 26805

and the environment. Subsequently,

EPA is proposing the deletion of this

Site from the NPL.

State Concurrence

The Florida Department of

Environmental Protection concurs with

the proposed deletion of the Chemform,

Inc. Superfund Site from the NPL. FDEP

submitted a ‘‘Letter of Concurrence’’ to

EPA on November 22, 1999. EPA also

worked closely with FDEP in

establishing a five year review period in

the ESD.

Reports that contain extensive Site

characterization information are

available for review, along with the

RODs and ESD, in the Administrative

Record. A Deletion Docket, which

contains all pertinent information

supporting the deletion

recommendation, is also available to the

public at the EPA Regional office and

the local Site repository.

Dated: April 6, 2000.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IV.

[FR Doc. 00–11569 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 538

[Docket No.: NHTSA–2000–7087]

Automotive Fuel Economy

Manufacturing Incentives for

Alternative Fuel Vehicles

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: This document seeks

comments to assist the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) in the study of the success of

the policy of providing corporate

average fuel economy (CAFE) incentives

for ‘‘dual-fuel’’ alternative fuel and

gaseous dual-fuel vehicles and whether

the agency should extend the incentive

program for four years beyond MY 2004.

Comments received in response to this

document will be used to assist NHTSA

in completing a study and issuing a

report to Congress on or before

September 30, 2000.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments to this document

must refer to the docket number and

notice number set forth above and be

submitted (preferably two copies) to:

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Docket Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20590. Docket hours are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

following persons at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20590: For non-legal issues: Mr.

Lawrence Fleming, Consumer Programs

Division, Office of Planning and

Consumer Programs, NPS–32, Room

5320, telephone (202) 366–4936,

facsimile (202) 493-2290. For legal

issues: Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief

Counsel, NCC–20, Room 5219,

telephone (202) 366–5263, facsimile

(202) 366–3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Corporate

average fuel economy (CAFE) is the fuel

economy, expressed in miles per gallon,

of a manufacturer’s fleet of: (1)

Passenger cars, or (2) light trucks under

8,500 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating.

Each manufacturer’s average fuel

economy is determined by the

Environmental Protection Agency in

accordance with procedures set forth in

49 U.S.C. 32904 and is calculated by

computing the weighted fuel economy

average of various model types of a

manufacturer in a particular model year.

The MY 2000 CAFE standard is 27.5

mpg for passenger cars and 20.7 mpg for

light trucks. Failure to comply with the

standard for either passenger car or light

truck fleets in any given model year

results in civil penalties of $5.50 for

each tenth of a mile per gallon per

vehicle. (49 U.S.C. 32912(b)).

Manufacturers can earn ‘‘credits’’ to

offset deficiencies in their CAFE

performance. Specifically, when the

average fuel economy of the vehicles

manufactured by a manufacturer in a

particular model year exceeds the

average fuel economy standard, the

manufacturer earns credits. The number

of credits a manufacturer earns is

determined by multiplying the number

of tenths of a mile per gallon by which

the manufacturer exceeded the fuel

economy standard in that model year

times the number of vehicles they

manufactured in that model year. These

credits can be applied to any of the

three consecutive model years

immediately after, or if a carry-back

plan is approved under 32903(b), before

the model year for which the credits are

earned. For a variety of reasons, credits

are highly valued by manufacturers and

provide a significant incentive to exceed

the applicable standards for a given

model year.

The Alternative Motor Fuels Act of

1988 (‘‘AMFA’; Pub. L. 100–94, October

14, 1988) was enacted with the primary

purpose of encouraging the

development and use of methanol,

ethanol and natural gas as

transportation fuels and to promote the

production of alternate fuel vehicles

(AFVs) by auto manufacturers. To this

end, AMFA contains provisions that

allow for special treatment of vehicle

fuel economy calculations for dedicated

alternative fuel vehicles and dual-fuel

vehicles that meet specified

requirements. Passenger automobiles

and light trucks that are eligible for

special fuel economy calculations are

‘‘dedicated’’ and designed to operate

exclusively on methanol or ethanol in

composition of 70 percent or more or on

natural gas; or ‘‘flexible fuel’’ vehicles

that have the capability to operate on

either conventional petroleum or a

blend of alcohols in conjunction with

either gasoline or diesel; or on natural

gas. These vehicles also must meet

energy efficiency and minimum driving

range requirements. A manufacturer

producing alternative fuel vehicles that

meet energy efficiency and minimum

driving range requirements may be able

to raise their overall fleet fuel economy

performance by manufacturing these

vehicles.

AMFA directs the Secretary of

Transportation to conduct a study and

issue a report on the success of the

policy of providing CAFE incentives for

alternative dual-fuel vehicles by

assessing alternative fuel use; cost and

availability; the availability and

affordability of vehicles capable of

operating on either alternative or

conventional fuel; the effect these

vehicles have on the environment;

energy conservation; and other relevant

factors. This document seeks

information and data that will assist the

agency in conducting its assessment.

1. Statutory Background

Section 6 of AMFA amended the fuel

economy provisions of Title V of the

Motor Vehicle Information and Cost

Savings Act by adding a new section

513 that contains incentives for the

manufacture of vehicles designed to

operate on alternative fuels, including

dual-fuel vehicles. Dual-fuel vehicles

are generally defined as one of two

classes that operate on either alternative

fuel and gasoline or diesel fuel, or those

capable of operating on natural gas or

either gasoline or diesel fuel. Section

513(h) specifically defined a ‘‘dual

energy@ automobile as one that meets a

minimum driving range and: