Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 61715

Written Comments

Written comments should be specific,

pertain only to the issues proposed in

this rulemaking, and include

explanations in support of the

commenter’s recommendations.

Comments received after the time

indicated under DATES or at locations

other than the Tusla Field Office will

not necessarily be considered in the

final rulemaking or included in the

Administrative Record.

Public Hearing

Persons wishing to speak at the public

hearing should contact the person listed

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT by 4:00 p.m., c.s.t. on

December 4, 1997. The location and

time of the hearing will be arranged

with those persons requesting the

hearing. Any disabled individual who

has need for a special accommodation to

attend a public hearing should contact

the individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. If no one requests

an opportunity to speak at the public

hearing, the hearing will not be held.

Filing of a written statement at the

time of the hearing is requested as it

will greatly assist the transcriber.

Submission of written statements in

advance of the hearing will allow OSM

officials to prepare adequate responses

and appropriate questions.

The public hearing will continue on

the specified date until all persons

scheduled to speak have been heard.

Persons in the audience who have not

been scheduled to speak, and who wish

to do so, will be heard following those

who have been scheduled. The hearing

will end after all persons scheduled to

speak and persons present in the

audience who wish to speak have been

heard.

Public Meeting

If only one person requests an

opportunity to speak at a hearing, a

public meeting, rather than a public

hearing, may be held. Persons wishing

to meet with OSM representatives to

discuss the proposed amendment may

request a meeting by contacting the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings

will be open to the public and, if

possible, notices of meetings will be

posted at the locations listed under

ADDRESSES. A written summary of each

meeting will be made a part of the

Administrative Record.

IV. Procedural Determinations

Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

Executive Order 12988

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that, to the extent allowed

by law, this rule meets the applicable

standards of subsections (a) and (b) of

that section. However, these standards

are not applicable to the actual language

of State regulatory programs and

program amendments since each such

program is drafted and promulgated by

a specific State, not by OSM. Under

sections 503 and 505 of SMCRA (30

U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

National Environment Policy Act

No environment impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data an assumptions for the counterpart

Federal regulations.

Unfunded Mandates

OSM has determined and certifies

pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.) that

this rule will not impose a cost of $100

million or more in any given year on

local, state, or tribal governments or

private entities.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 918

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: November 7, 1997.

Brent Wahlquist,

Regional Director, Mid-Continent Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 97–30304 Filed 11–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5925–2]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances; Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete

Coalinga Asbestos Mine Site from the

National Priorities List: request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region 9 announces its

intent to delete the Coalinga Asbestos

Mine Site from the National Priorities

list (NPL) and requests public comment

on this proposed action. The NPL

constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part

300 which is the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended.

EPA and the State of California

Department of Toxic Substances Control

have determined that all appropriate

CERCLA response actions have been

implemented and that no further

cleanup by responsible parties is

appropriate. Moreover, EPA and the

State have determined that remedial

activities conducted at the site to date

have been protective of public health,

welfare, and the environment.

DATES: Comments concerning the

proposed deletion of this Site from the
61716 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

NPL may be submitted by December 19,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Keith Takata, Director, Superfund

Programs, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Comprehensive information on this

site is available through the EPA Region

9 public docket which is located at EPA

Region 9’s Superfund Records Center, at

the address above, and is available for

viewing between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays. Additional information on the

Coalinga Asbestos Mine Site is also

available for viewing at the site

repository located at: City of Coalinga

Public Library, 305 North Fourth Street,

Coalinga, CA 93210, (209) 935–1676.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard Procunier, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105, (415) 744–2219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Region 9 announces its intent to

delete the Coalinga Asbestos Mine Site

(EPA ID# CAD980817217), Coalinga,

California, from the National Priorities

List (NPL), Appendix B of the National

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part

300, and requests comments on this

deletion. EPA identifies sites that

appear to present a significant risk to

public health, welfare, or the

environment and maintains the NPL as

the list of these sites. As described in 40

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

deleted from the NPL remain eligible for

remedial actions in the unlikely event

that conditions at the site warrant such

action.

EPA will accept comments on the

proposal to delete this site for thirty

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 the Coalinga Asbestos Mine

Site and explains how the site meets the

deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP

provides that sites may be deleted from,

or recategorized on, the NPL when 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 have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other parties

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required; or

(ii) All appropriate 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.

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’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 Coalinga Asbestos

Mine Site has two operable units: the

City of Coalinga Operable Unit (City

Unit) and the Coalinga Mine Site/ JohnsManville Mill Operable Unit (JM Unit).

The first five-year review for the City

Unit was completed in April 1996. The

first five-year review for the JM Unit is

expected to be completed in late 1997.

If new information becomes available

which indicates a need for further

action, EPA may initiate remedial

actions. Wherever 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.

III. Deletion Procedures

The following procedures were used

for the proposed deletion of this Site: (1)

EPA Region 9 has recommended

deletion and has prepared the relevant

documents; (2) the State of California

has concurred with the proposed

deletion decision; (3) a notice has been

published in the local newspaper and

has been distributed to appropriate

federal, state, and local officials and

other interested parties announcing the

commencement of a 30-day public

comment period on EPA’s Notice of

Intent to Delete; and (4) all relevant

documents have been made available for

public review in the local Site

information repository.

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 document, section

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the

deletion of a site from the NPL does not

preclude eligibility for future response

actions.

For deletion of this Site, EPA’s

Regional 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 to address any significant

public comments received.

A deletion occurs when the Regional

Administrator places a final notice in

the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL

will reflect deletions in the final update

following the Notice. Public notices and

copies of the Responsiveness Summary,

if one is prepared, will be made

available to interested parties by the

Regional Office.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

A. Unit Background

City Unit

The City of Coalinga Unit is privately

owned and consists of approximately

107 acres of land situated between 4th

Street and the intersection of Lucille

Avenue and Highway 198 at the

southwestern end of the City of

Coalinga, Fresno County, California.

The nearest population center is

Coalinga (approximate population of

9850), located immediately to the

northeast. The surrounding area is

mixed use, consisting of industrial,

agricultural, commercial and residential

properties.

JM Unit

The JM Unit is a privately owned,

120-acre tract of land located in upper

Pine Canyon on the southern flank of

the Joaquin Ridge in the Diablo Range,

western Fresno County, California. It is

located approximately 1⁄2 mile down

slope from the New Idria Formation, a

48-square mile outcrop margin of

naturally occurring chrysotile asbestos.

The nearest population center is

Coalinga located about 16 miles to the

southeast. Areas adjacent to the JM Unit

are rural; land uses include mining,

ranching, farming and recreation

(camping, hunting, hiking, mineral

collecting, and riding off-highway

vehicles).

B. Site History

City Unit

The Southern Pacific Railroad

property within the original 107-acre

City Unit consisted partly of a portion

of the original operating right-of-way

acquired by Southern Pacific Railroad
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 61717

Company (a predecessor of Southern

Pacific Transportation Company)

pursuant to the July 27, 1866 Act of

Congress, and partly of ancillary lands

acquired pursuant to the same Act

patented July 10, 1894. During Southern

Pacific’s ownership, several properties

were leased to various entities which

were active in the milling, manufacture,

storage and/or transportation of asbestos

materials from the mid-1950’s until

approximately 1980.

JM Unit

The Southern Pacific Railroad

acquired the property on which the JM

Unit is located as part of a land grant

under the 1871 Railway Act. In the mid1950’s researchers discovered that

chrysotile asbestos from the New Idria

Formation could be milled to yield a

marketable short-fiber asbestos product.

The Southern Pacific Land Company

(SPLC) leased the JM Unit for a period

of 25 years to the Coalinga Asbestos

Company beginning about 1956. This

joint venture, which was comprised of

the Johns-Manville Corporation, Kern

County Land Company, and private

investors, operated an asbestos ore

processing mill at the JM Unit from

approximately 1962 through mid-1974.

During this period, ore was processed

from several nearby open pit mines,

including the Jensen Mine and the

Christy Pit. In November 1975, the

Coalinga Asbestos Company assigned

the lease to the Marmac Resource

Company/Mareco, which used the

property to conduct a chromite milling

operation. Although all milling

operations were believed to have ceased

in October 1977, Marmac retained the

lease until July 31, 1981. The current

owner of the JM Unit is Pine Canyon

Land Company, successor-in-interest to

SPLC.

C. Site Discovery

In 1980, the Metropolitan Water

District (MWD) of Southern California

detected asbestos in water samples from

the California Aqueduct. An extensive

sampling program conducted along the

Aqueduct in August and September of

1980 suggested that the area in which

the JM Unit was located was, in part, a

possible source of asbestos into the

California Aqueduct. In addition, EPA

sampled mill tailings at the JM Unit;

analytical results obtained from using

polarized light microscopy showed the

tailings contained 20% to 40% asbestos.

During investigation of the Coalinga

Asbestos Mine site and the nearby Atlas

Mine site, EPA conducted an airborne

asbestos sampling program in which

high asbestos readings were measured

in the City of Coalinga. Further

investigation revealed that asbestos had

been transported from the mines and

mills to storage areas within the City of

Coalinga for handling and shipment.

Soil sampling confirmed the presence of

uncontrolled hot spots of asbestos and

nickel contamination over a 107-acre

area in the City of Coalinga.

The Site became the City of Coalinga

Operable Unit of the Atlas Mine Site

and the Johns-Manville Coalinga

Asbestos Mill Site. It was divided into

four areas: the Marmac Warehouse, the

Storage Yard, the Atlas Shipping Yard,

and the U.S. Asbestos Company. The

northern end of the 107-acre site was

connected to the Atlas Mine Site, while

the southern end was connected to the

Johns-Manville Mill Site. Although the

cleanup could have proceeded as two

separate Operable Units, EPA decided to

combine it into one site cleanup,

designated an operable unit for each of

the two NPL Sites.

Risks posed by the JM Unit were

evaluated using the Hazard Ranking

System on June 14, 1983 and the JM

Unit (designated the Coalinga Asbestos

Mine Site) was proposed for placement

on the National Priorities List on

September 8, 1983. It was finalized on

the NPL on September 21, 1984.

D. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility

Study

City Unit

In August 1987, EPA issued an

administrative order pursuant to

CERCLA section 106 (Order 87–04) to

Southern Pacific Transportation

Company (SPTC) requiring it to conduct

a Remedial Investigation at the City of

Coalinga site. Soil sampling confirmed

the presence of uncontrolled hot spots

of asbestos and nickel contamination

over a 107-acre area in the City of

Coalinga. EPA ordered SPTC to prepare

an Operable Unit Feasibility Study

(OUFS) to develop and evaluate

remedial alternatives for the site, which

became the City of Coalinga Operable

Unit of both the Coalinga Asbestos Mine

Site and the Atlas Mine Site.

At the City of Coalinga Unit, Remedial

Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

activities commenced in 1987 with the

implementation of the Hazardous

Substance Containment Plan and were

completed in December 1988 with the

completion of the FS. Implementation of

the Hazardous Substance Containment

Plan provided measures to initially

stabilize the areas where asbestos had

been documented by EPA. These

measures included fencing and posting,

dust suppression, and stabilization of

building structures. Subsequently, a site

sampling program was undertaken to

characterize the extent of asbestos

present in soils in the area. In addition

to soil sampling, air samples and

groundwater samples were collected.

Upon completion of the site

characterization, the FS was performed

to evaluate remedial alternatives for the

site. The FS evaluated a number of

remedial alternatives for handling

contaminated soils including no action,

fencing, capping, soil stabilization, onsite disposal, chemical fixation, and offsite disposal. Onsite disposal of soils

containing asbestos in an engineered

waste management unit was the selected

alternative.

JM Unit

At the JM Unit, RI/FS activities were

initiated in 1985 and completed in

1990. The RI described site

characterization activities and technical

analyses, which included soil and

surface water sampling, hydrologic and

sediment transport modeling, geologic

mapping, an ecological assessment and

a cultural resources investigation. The

location and configuration of asbestoscontaining materials at the JM Unit were

assessed using aerial photographs, field

observations, and the collection and

analysis of samples obtained from

surface materials, exploratory borings,

pits, and trenches. Geotechnical

investigation activities included slope

stability analyses, seismic engineering

evaluations, and testing of site materials

for permeability, moisture content,

density, shear strength, and Atterberg

Limits. A detailed off-site source

characterization study was also

performed.

E. ROD Findings and Remedial

Activities

City Unit

After consideration of public

comments, EPA issued a Record of

Decision (ROD) for the City Unit on July

19, 1989. The ROD required the

collection and on-site disposal of all

asbestos ore waste and other mining

waste material; decontamination of all

buildings, structures and other

equipment; regrading of excavated areas

with clean material (containing less

than or equal to one percent asbestos by

Phased Light Microscopy (PLM)); a deed

restriction on the area where the waste

management unit would be constructed

and maintained; and a long term

operation and maintenance program to

maintain the integrity of the waste

management unit. Southern Pacific

agreed to implement the selected

remedy as defined in the ROD by

entering into a Consent Decree with the

EPA on July 27, 1989. The design report
61718 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules

presenting the technical specifications

for the construction of the on-site

asbestos waste management unit was

approved by EPA on October 5, 1989.

Remedial action consisted of

excavation of soils in areas where the

site characterization study indicated the

presence of asbestos greater than 1% by

PLM. The soils were consolidated in an

on-site waste management unit with a

final capacity of 26,200 cubic yards. In

addition, asbestos-containing materials

within building structures such as

transite panels, mining ore, and other

debris were removed to the waste

management unit. The building

structures were then pressure washed.

Excavated areas and buildings were

sampled to verify that the action levels

had been met. The excavated areas were

regraded for proper drainage. The

remedy was certified to be operational

and functional as specified in the ROD

and Consent Decree by the resident

engineer supervising the work. The

areas previously defined as

contaminated were certified to be below

the EPA cleanup level. Remedial

construction activities commenced in

June of 1990 and were completed in

January 1992. EPA issued its certificate

of completion in April 1992. Homes and

a large retail store have been built on

formerly contaminated land.

JM Unit

After consideration of public

comments, EPA issued a Record of

Decision (ROD) for the JM Unit on

September 21, 1990. The remedial

action selected in the ROD addressed

the problem of the asbestos ore and

asbestos mill tailings at the JM Unit in

the context of a remote and largely rural

area that is close to large amounts of

naturally occurring asbestos. The ROD

required grading of asbestos tailings;

construction of a stream diversion to

channel surface water away from the

tailings pile; improvements to an

existing sediment trapping dam;

restricted access to disturbed areas

within the mill area; a revegetation pilot

study and revegetation if technically

feasible; dismantling of an abandoned

mill; improvements to the road through

the Mill Area to suppress dust; a deed

restriction to ensure preservation of the

remedy; and visual inspections of the

remedy. The responsible parties for the

JM Unit agreed to implement the

selected remedy as defined in the ROD

by entering into a Consent Decree with

the EPA on August 11, 1992.

A Remedial Design Work Plan

(RDWP) for the JM Unit was submitted

to EPA on February 25, 1993, which

provided the overall management

strategy for performing the design,

construction, operation and

maintenance, and monitoring of the

remedial action. The RDWP was

approved by EPA on April 1, 1993.

Other submittals approved by EPA

included the 30% Design Package, the

90% Design Package, and the Final

Design Package.

Remedial action at the JM Unit

consisted of mill dismantling; regrading

the tailings pile; cross-canyon stream

diversion; improvements to an existing

sediment trapping dam; access

restrictions; deed restrictions;

revegetation pilot study; revegetation

and paving the access road. The remedy

has been certified to be operational by

the Supervising Engineer and is in

compliance with the Consent Decree,

the ROD, the approved final Remedial

Design, the NCP, and ARARs. At the JM

Unit, remedial action was started on

May 17, 1993 and was completed prior

to the pre-final inspection on April 28,

1994.

F. Community Relations Activities

Commencing in June 1987, EPA

personnel met periodically with

members of the Coalinga City Council.

Several different persons designated by

the City to be the Council’s contact with

EPA were kept informed about the

investigation status. The Operable Unit

Feasibility Study (OUFS) report was

released for public comment on

February 9, 1989. This document along

with other site reports and the

administrative record were made

available to the public at an information

repository established at the City of

Coalinga Public Library.

The public comment period

commenced on February 9, 1989 and

closed on March 24, 1989. A public

meeting was held on February 22, 1989

at the City Council Chambers. Prior to

the beginning of the public comment

period, EPA published a notice in the

Fresno Bee and the Coalinga Weekly

Courier. The notice briefly described the

proposed plan and announced the

public comment period and the public

meeting. The notice also announced the

availability of the proposed plan and the

OUFS for review at the information

repository. A fact sheet describing the

proposed plan was delivered to the

information repository. Copies of the

fact sheet were mailed to the EPA

general mailing list for the Atlas Mine

and Johns-Manville Coalinga Mill Sites,

which included approximately 300

members of the general public, elected

officials and media representatives.

In July 1992 EPA issued Fact Sheets

which were mailed to the general

mailing list giving an update on cleanup activities in the Coalinga Area,

including the Atlas and Coalinga

Asbestos Mines and the City of Coalinga

Superfund sites. In June 1993, a

newspaper advertisement was placed in

the Coalinga Record to notify nearby

residents of the initiation of remedial

activities at the JM Unit and to collect

names and addresses of parties

interested in being placed on a mailing

list for future information. Postage-paid,

pre-addressed response cards were also

sent to residents near the JM Unit to

determine if the residents wished to be

placed on the mailing list. In March

1997, EPA issued another Fact Sheet to

the general mailing list.

G. Summary of Operation and

Maintenance

Long-term operation and maintenance

at each Unit is being performed under

the direction of the relevant responsible

party and oversight by the California

Department of Toxic Substances

Control. O&M activities for the City Unit

currently include annual inspections for

cap integrity, surface water ponding,

fence integrity and repairs as necessary.

There is also a provision for specific

monitoring in the event of a natural

disaster (100 year flood, catastrophic

earthquake). The Operations and

Maintenance Plan for the JM Unit is

Appendix G of the Remedial Action

Completion Report, dated January 10,

1995. O&M activities for the JM Unit

include inspection of engineering

systems, sediment removal, gate control,

repairs, and reporting. There is also a

provision for specific monitoring in the

event of heavy rainfall or seismic

activity of magnitude 5 or greater within

50 miles of the Site and a site caretaker.

O&M activities for both Units are being

conducted in accordance with the O&M

Plans.

H. Protectiveness

The implemented remedies achieved

the degree of cleanup and protection as

described in the RODs for all pathways

of exposure and no further Superfund

response is needed to protect human

health and the environment. Both units

at the Site meet all the site completion

requirements as specified in OSWER

Directive 9320.2–09, Close-Out

Procedures for National Priorities List

Sites (Interim Final), August 1995. Long

term operation and maintenance will be

required to insure the integrity of

controls constructed during the

remedial actions. The remediation

implemented at each Unit does not

require any operational activities

because of its permanent nature.

Inspection activities, however, will be

conducted. For the City Unit,

maintenance activities may be required
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 19, 1997 / Proposed Rules 61719

for the cap and fence; for the JM Unit,

maintenance activities may be required

for stream diversions and sediment

retention structures. For the City Unit,

a deed restriction was recorded with the

Recorder’s Office, Fresno County,

California, on June 22, 1990 which

prohibited anyone in possession of the

property from taking any actions that

would interfere with the maintenance

and operation of the waste management

unit to be constructed pursuant to the

Consent Decree. This deed restriction

was amended upon completion of the

remedial action to illustrate the exact

placement and dimensions of the

constructed waste management unit. For

the JM Unit, a deed restriction recorded

with the Recorder’s Office, Fresno

County, California, on July 2, 1993,

prohibits anyone in possession of the

property from taking actions that would

interfere with the implementation of the

remedy. Pursuant to CERCLA 121 and

as provided in OSWER Directive

9355.7–02, Structure and Components

of Five-Year Reviews, May 23, 1991,

OSWER Directive 9355.702A,

Supplemental Five-Year Review

Guidance, July 26, 1994, and Second

Supplemental Five-Year Review

Guidance, December 21, 1996, EPA

must conduct a statutory five-year

review.

One of the three criteria for deletion

specified that EPA may delete a site

from the NPL if ‘‘responsible parties or

other parties have implemented all

appropriate response actions required.’’

EPA, with the concurrence of the

California Department of Toxic

Substances Control, 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 EPA Region 9 NPL

docket.

Dated: November 11, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region 9.

[FR Doc. 97–30380 Filed 11–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–227, RM–9159]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Wasilla,

AK

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition for rule making

filed on behalf of KMBQ Corporation,

requesting the allotment of Channel

273C2 to Wasilla, Alaska, as that

community’s second local FM

transmission service. Coordinates used

for this proposal are 61–37–32 and 149–

24–05.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before December 22, 1997, and reply

comments on or before January 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the FCC,

interested parties should serve the

petitioner’s counsel as follows: John

Wells King and Amelia Brown, Esqs.,

Haley, Bader & Potts, 4350 North Fairfax

Drive, Suite 900, Arlington, VA 22203–

1633.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

97–227, adopted October 22, 1997, and

released October 31, 1997. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC’s

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractors, International

Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036,

(202) 857–3800.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, See 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 97–30286 Filed 11–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–224, RM–9177]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Monroe,

UT

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by Charles

D. Hall requesting the allotment of

Channel 257C2 to Monroe, Utah, as the

community’s first local aural

transmission service. Channel 257C2

can be allotted to Monroe in compliance

with the Commission’s minimum

distance separation requirements with a

site restriction of 1.3 kilometers (0.8

miles) south in order to avoid a shortspacing conflict with vacant Channel

256A at Levan, Utah. The coordinates

for Channel 257C2 at Monroe are 38–

37–21 NL and 112–07–29 WL.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before December 22, 1997, and reply

comments on or before January 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: James K. Edmundson,

Gardner, Carton & Douglas, 1301 K

Street, NW., Suite 900, East Tower,

Washington, DC 20005 (Counsel for

petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

97–224, adopted October 22, 1997, and

released October 31, 1997. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC’s

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 1231 20th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20036.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in