38476 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501–3520.).

Federalism

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under E.O. 13132 and have determined

that this rule does not have implications

for federalism under that Order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

unfunded mandate is a regulation that

requires a State, local, or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur direct costs without the Federal

Government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This proposed

rule would not impose an unfunded

mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This proposed rule would not effect a

taking of private property or otherwise

have taking implications under E.O.

12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This proposed rule meets applicable

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of

E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate

ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

We have analyzed this proposed rule

under E.O. 13045, Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not

an economically significant rule and

does not concern an environmental risk

to health or risk to safety that may

disproportionately affect children.

Environment

We considered the environmental

impact of this proposed rule and

concluded that, under figure 2–1,

paragraph 34, of COMDTINST

M16475.lC, this proposed rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

Categorical Exclusion Determination

will be prepared in accordance with

paragraph 2.B.2, Figure 2–1, CE#34(f) of

COMDTINST M16475.1C. This rule

proposes creating a new anchorage area

to the east of the Sabine Bank Offshore

(North) Anchorage area. This new

anchorage would enhance the safety in

the waters offshore of Port Arthur, Texas

by allowing additional space and a safer

approach for deep draft vessels to

anchor.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 166

Anchorage grounds, Marine Safety,

Navigation (water), Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 166 as follows:

PART 166—SHIPPING SAFETY

1. The authority citation for part 166

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223; 49 CFR 1.46.

2. In § 166.200, paragraph (d)(13)(iv)

is added to read as follows:

§ 166.200 Shipping safety fairways and

anchorage areas, Gulf of Mexico.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(13) * * *

(iv) Sabine Bank Offshore (East)

Anchorage Area. The area enclosed by

rhumb lines joining points at:

Latitude Longitude

29°26′06′′ N. 93°38′52′′ W.

29°26′06′′ N. 93°37′00′′ W.

29°24′06′′ N. 93°37′00′′ W.

29°24′06′′ N. 93°38′52′′ W.

Dated: May 31, 2000.

Paul J. Pluta,

Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 00–15514 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6719–1]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan, National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent for partial

deletion of the Cimarron Mining

Superfund Site from the National

Priorities List.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region 6 announces its

intent for partial deletion of the

Cimarron Mining Superfund Site from

the National Priorities List (NPL) and

requests public comment on this action.

All public comments regarding this

proposed action will be considered by

EPA. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to

section 105 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is

codified as Appendix B to the National

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part

300. The proposed partial deletion of

the Cimarron Mining Site is in

accordance with 40 CFR 300.425 (e) and

the Notice of Policy Change: Partial

Deletion of Sites Listed on the NPL.

EPA, in consultation with the New

Mexico Environment Department

(NMED), has determined that all

appropriate response actions under

CERCLA have been implemented to

protect human health, welfare, and the

environment at the portions of the site

for which deletion is being proposed.

This partial deletion includes all

portions of the Cimarron Operable Unit

(OU1) and the Sierra Blanca Operable

Unit (OU2) except for the long-term

ground water remedy at OU1.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by

July 21, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Ms. Petra Sanchez, Remedial Project

Manager (6SF–LT), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

(214) 665–6686 or (800) 533–3508.

Information Repositories:

Comprehensive information on the site

has been compiled in a public deletion

docket which may be reviewed and

copied during normal business hours at

the following information repositories:

U.S. EPA Region 6 Library (12th Floor)

1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas

75202–2733

New Mexico Environment Department,

P.O. Box 26110, 11909 St. Francis Dr.,

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503

Carrizozo City Hall P.O. Box 247,

Carrizozo, New Mexico 88301

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Petra Sanchez, Remedial Project

Manager (6SF–LT), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6,1445 Ross

Avenue Dallas, Texas 75202–2733 (214)

665–6686, 1–800–533–3508.

Mr. David Henry, New Mexico

Environment Department, 1190 St.

Francis Dr., P.O. Box 26110, Santa Fe,

New Mexico 87503, (505) 827–0037.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents:

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Partial Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

I. Introduction

This document was prepared by EPA

Region 6 as Notice of Intent for Partial

Deletion (Notice or NOIPD) of the

Cimarron Mining Superfund Site (EPA

Site Spill No. 06B5; CERCLIS No.

NMD980749378), from the National

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules 38477

1The ‘‘Fund’’ referred to here is the Hazardous

Substance Superfund established by section 9507 of

the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

2Treated soil remains on the Site at the Sierra

Blanca Operable Unit (OU2). EPA considers this

treated soil area to be protective of unrestricted use;

i.e., residential or industrial future use nonetheless,

since hazardous substances will remain on the Site,

EPA is required to conduct a five-year review.

3The Hazardous Ranking System, Appendix A to

40 CFR part 300, is the method used by EPA to

evaluate the relative potential of hazardous

substance releases to cause health or safety

problems, or ecological or environmental damage.

Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is the list

compiled by EPA pursuant to CERCLA

section 105 of uncontrolled hazardous

substance release sites in the United

States that are priorities for long-term

remedial evaluation and response. As

described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the

National Contingency Plan (NCP), sites

deleted from the NPL remain eligible for

remedial actions in the unlikely event

that conditions at the site warrant such

action.

The EPA will consider comments

concerning this document which are

submitted within thirty days of the date

of this Notice. The EPA has also

published an advertisement of the

availability of this Notice in the

Albuquerque Journal and Lincoln

County News.

Section II of this Notice of Intent for

Partial Deletion explains the National

Contingency Plan criteria for deleting

sites from the National Priorities List.

Section III discusses procedures that

EPA is using for this action. Section IV

discusses the Cimarron Mining

Superfund Site and explains that

portions of the site meet the NCP

deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

The NCP, at 40 CFR 300.425(e),

provides that sites may be deleted from

the NPL if no further response is

appropriate. In making a determination

to delete a site from the NPL, EPA shall

consider, in consultation with the State,

whether any of the following criteria has

been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required;

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed 1

response under CERCLA has been

implemented, and no further action by

responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. The remedial investigation has

shown that the release poses no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, taking of

remedial measures is not appropriate.

If, at the site of a release, EPA selects

a remedial action that results in any

hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants remaining at the site,

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

121(c), requires that EPA review such

remedial action no less often than each

5 years to ensure that human health and

the environment are being protected by

the remedial action. Since hazardous

substances will remain at the site,2 EPA

shall conduct such reviews. If new

information becomes available which

indicates a need for further action, EPA

may initiate further remedial actions.

Whenever there is a significant release

from a site deleted from the NPL, the

site may be restored to the NPL without

application of the Hazard Ranking

System (HRS).3

III. Partial Deletion Procedures

EPA followed these procedures

regarding the proposed partial deletion:

(1) EPA Region 6 made a

determination that no further response

action is necessary and that portions of

the site may be deleted from the NPL;

(2) EPA has consulted with the

appropriate environmental agency, the

New Mexico Environment Department

(NMED), and NMED concurs with EPA’s

partial deletion decision;

(3) EPA has published, in a major

local newspaper of general circulation at

or near the site, an advertisement of

availability of this Notice, which

includes an announcement of a 30-day

public comment period regarding the

Notice, and EPA distributed the Notice

to appropriate State, local and Federal

officials, and to other interested parties;

and

(4) EPA placed copies of information

supporting the proposed deletion (i.e.,

the public deletion docket) in the site

information repositories (the locations

of these repositories are identified

above).

Deletion of a site from the NPL does

not itself create, alter, or revoke any

individual’s rights or obligations. As

mentioned in Section II of this Notice,

40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states

that the deletion of a site from the NPL

does not preclude eligibility of the site

for future response actions.

EPA Region 6 will accept and

evaluate public comments on this

Notice before making a final decision to

delete. If necessary, EPA will prepare a

Responsiveness Summary to address

any significant public comments

received.

IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site

Deletion

A. Site Location and Description

The Cimarron Mining Site has two

operable units (OUs). The first operable

unit (OU–1) is located approximately 1⁄4

mile east of Carrizozo, Lincoln County,

New Mexico, and approximately 100

miles south-southeast of Albuquerque,

New Mexico. The site is about 10.6

acres in size, and is located in the NE1⁄4

of Section 2, Township 8S, Range 10E,

on the north side of Highway 380 (see

Appendix A). The site consisted of a

conventional agitation mill, which

resulted in unpermitted discharge of

contaminated liquids and the

stockpiling of contaminated liquids,

tailings and other waste sediment.

Access to the site is restricted by an 8-

foot fence. Approximately 1500 people

live within a two mile radius of the site.

The Sierra Blanca Operable Unit

(OU2) is located approximately one mile

south of OU1 and comprises

approximately 7.5 acres. The Sierra

Blanca OU was designed and operated

similarly to the Cimarron mill with the

exception that cyanide was apparently

not used at Sierra Blanca. The site file

information from EPA and NMED

discusses a possible spill occurring at

Cimarron that most likely prompted

milling operations to be relocated to

Sierra Blanca in June of 1982. The Sierra

Blanca milling location included two

buildings, four discharge pits, one

cinder block trench, a septic tank

system, and numerous process tanks

and material piles.

B. History

The Cimarron Mining Corporation site

is an inactive milling facility originally

owned by Zia Steel Inc., and used to

recover iron from ores transported to the

site. The iron recovery process took

place between the late 1960’s and 1979

and involved crushing of the ore

material, creating a liquid slurry by

mixing with water and collecting the

ferric (iron) portion of the mix by using

a magnetic separator. Cyanide was not

used in this original process. Tailings

from the process were transported away

from the site and used as fill material in

local construction projects. In 1979, the

site was sold to Southwest Minerals

Corporation. Southwest Minerals began

using cyanide soon thereafter to extract

precious metals from ore. Details on the

operation between 1979 and 1981 are

not available other than a 1980 New

Mexico Environmental Improvement

Division (NMEID) sample analysis

report. The report cited the presence of

cyanide contamination in OU 1.

Southwest Minerals, a subsidiary of

Sierra Blanca Mining and Milling

Company, operated at the site without

the permits required for conducting

cyanide processing. In mid-1981, the

operation was expanded by adding

several large mixing tanks, cyanide

solution tanks and associated pumping

and conveyance equipment. The NMEID

38478 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 21, 2000 / Proposed Rules

sent a certified notice of violation to the

property owner on June 22, 1982, for

discharging into a non-permitted

discharge pit and, in July 1982, the site

ceased operation. No legal action was

taken by the State; the company filed for

bankruptcy in July 1983, and a court

assigned bankruptcy trustee was

appointed for the site.

Field inspections of the site by

NMEID in February 1980, June 1982,

and in May and June 1984, revealed the

presence of cyanide and elevated metals

in shallow ground water, soil and mill

tailings. An Expanded Site Inspection

(ESI) was conducted from January to

October 1987 by an EPA Field

Investigation Team (FIT). The objective

of the ESI was to collect additional data

for the Hazard Ranking System (HRS)

and to facilitate the Remedial

Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

planning.

On-site activities performed during

the ESI included surface and subsurface

soil sampling, visual inspection of

process tanks, sampling of remnant

materials in the tanks, quantifying waste

volumes, sampling and geologically

describing subsurface soil borings

during installation of monitoring wells,

sampling ground water in the

monitoring wells and in nearby water

supply wells, testing insitu permeability

at the monitor wells, and identifying

adjacent land uses.

Based on the findings of site

investigations and the preparation of the

HRS package, the Cimarron Mining

Corporation Site was proposed for

addition to the National Priorities List

(NPL) on June 24, 1988, and finalized on

October 4, 1989.

The OU1 selected remedy for ground

water treatment consists of extracting

contaminated shallow ground water and

discharging to the City of Carrizozo

sewage treatment plant, meeting all

pretreatment requirements prior to

discharge. Ground water treatment in

OU1 will continue as long as it

demonstrates effective, or, until the site

is taken over by the state in 2004. The

OU2 selected remedy includes the

excavation and treatment of arsenic and

lead contaminated soils by mixing the

soils with cement and placing them in

the on-site discharge pit with a native

soil cover and native re-vegetation.

Pursuant to section 104(c)(6) of

CERCLA, EPA is authorized to share the

cost of restoration of the ground water

for a period of up to ten years or until

the level of protectiveness, as defined in

the Record of Decision, is achieved. The

ten-year period began when the ground

water remedy at the Cimarron Unit

became operational and functional and

adheres to the statutory provisions in 40

CFR 300.435(f)(3) and 300.435(f)(4).

Based on mutual agreement between

EPA and NMED, the ground water

extraction and treatment system was

deemed operational and functional

beginning January 30, 1994.

C. Characterization of Risk

Due to remedial actions by EPA and

NMED, and the long term remedial

action for contaminated ground water,

EPA verifies the implemented remedy

for the portions of the site proposed to

be deleted is protective of human health

and the environment.

D. Community Involvement

Public participation activities have

been satisfied as required in CERCLA

subsection 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k),

and in CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C.

9617. Documents in the deletion docket

on which EPA relied for

recommendation of the site partial

deletion from the NPL have been made

available to the public in the three

information repositories as specified

above.

E. Proposed Action

In consultation with NMED, EPA has

concluded that all appropriate response

actions required at portions of the site

proposed to be deleted have been met.

Neither the CERCLA-required five-year

reviews nor operation and maintenance

of the ground water remedy are

considered further response action for

these purposes. The ground water

remedy for OU 1, which is the portion

of the site not being proposed for

deletion, will continue until the

remedial action level for cyanide has

been met or an alternate treatment and/

or remedial action level is selected by

EPA and the State.

In a letter dated January 25, 1999,

NMED formally concurred with the

partial deletion of the site and stated

NMED’s satisfaction with all completed

remedial tasks as defined in the ROD.

Moreover, EPA, in consultation with

NMED, has determined that site surface

soils at both OU 1 (Cimarron) and OU

2 (Sierra Blanca) now pose no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and that the Sierra Blanca

site is suitable for future redevelopment.

Consequently, EPA proposes this partial

deletion of the Cimarron Mining

Superfund Site.

Dated: May 31, 2000.

Lynda Carroll,

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region

6.

[FR Doc. 00–15393 Filed 6–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–01–P

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA–7311]

Proposed Flood Elevation

Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency, FEMA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Technical information or

comments are requested on the

proposed base (1% annual chance) flood

elevations and proposed base flood

elevation modifications for the

communities listed below. The base

flood elevations are the basis for the

floodplain management measures that

the community is required either to

adopt or to show evidence of being

already in effect in order to qualify or

remain qualified for participation in the

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP).

DATES: The comment period is ninety

(90) days following the second

publication of this proposed rule in a

newspaper of local circulation in each

community.

ADDRESSES: The proposed base flood

elevations for each community are

available for inspection at the office of

the Chief Executive Officer of each

community. The respective addresses

are listed in the following table.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards

Study Branch, Mitigation Directorate,

Federal Emergency Management

Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington,

DC 20472; (202) 646–3461, or (email)

matt.miller@fema.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA or Agency) proposes to make

determinations of base flood elevations

and modified base flood elevations for

each community listed below, in

accordance with section 110 of the

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973,

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

These proposed base flood and

modified base flood elevations, together

with the floodplain management criteria

required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the

minimum that are required. They

should not be construed to mean that

the community must change any

existing ordinances that are more

stringent in their floodplain

management requirements. The

community may at any time enact

stricter requirements of its own, or

pursuant to policies established by other