70312 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

§ 645.209 General requirements.

* * * * *

(j) Traffic control plan. Whenever a

utility installation, adjustment or

maintenance activity will affect the

movement of traffic or traffic safety, the

utility shall implement a traffic control

plan and utilize traffic control devices

as necessary to ensure the safe and

expeditious movement of traffic around

the work site and the safety of the utility

work force in accordance with

procedures established by the

transportation department. The traffic

control plan and the application of

traffic control devices shall conform to

the standards set forth in the current

edition of the ‘‘Manual on Uniform

Traffic Control Devices’’ (MUTCD) and

23 CFR part 630, subpart J. This

publication is available for inspection

and copying from the FHWA

Washington Headquarters and all

FHWA Division Offices as prescribed in

49 CFR part 7.

* * * * *

(m) Utility determination. In

determining whether a proposed

installation is a utility or not, the most

important consideration is how the STD

views it under its own State laws and/

or regulations.

10. Amend § 645.211 by revising the

introductory text of the section to read

as follows:

§ 645.211 State transportation department

accommodation policies.

The FHWA should use the current

editions of the AASHTO publications,

‘‘A Guide for Accommodating Utilities

Within Highway Right-of-Way’’ and

‘‘Roadside Design Guide’’ to assist in the

evaluation of adequacy of STD utility

accommodation policies. These

publications are available for inspection

from the FHWA Washington

Headquarters and all FHWA Division

Offices as prescribed in 49 CFR part 7.

Copies of current AASHTO publications

are available for purchase from the

American Association of State Highway

and Transportation Officials, Suite 225,

444 North Capitol Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20001, or electronically

at http://www.aashto.org. At a

minimum, such policies shall make

adequate provisions with respect to the

following:

* * * * *

11. Revise § 645.215(d) to read as

follows:

§ 645.215 Approvals.

* * * * *

(d) When a utility files a notice or

makes an individual application or

request to a STD to use or occupy the

right-of-way of a Federal-aid highway

project, the STD is not required to

submit the matter to the FHWA for prior

concurrence, except when the proposed

installation is not in accordance with

this regulation or with the STD’s utility

accommodation policy approved by the

FHWA for use on Federal-aid highway

projects.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–29572 Filed 11–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6859–3]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final deletion of the John

Deere Ottumwa Works Site (Site) from

the National Priorities List (NPL).

SUMMARY: EPA Region VII announces

the deletion of the John Deere Ottumwa

Works Site (Site) from the NPL and

requests public comment on this action.

The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40

CFR part 300 which is the National Oil

and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA

promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended

(CERCLA). EPA and the Iowa

Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)

have determined that all appropriate

response actions have been

implemented and remedial actions

conducted at the site to date remain

protective of human health and the

environment.

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ action will be

effective January 22, 2001 unless EPA

receives significant adverse or critical

comments by December 22, 2000. If

written dissenting comments are

received, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Debra L. Kring, Environmental

Protection Specialist, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 901

North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101.

Comprehensive information on this Site

is available through the public docket

which is available for viewing at the

U.S. EPA Region VII Superfund Division

Records Center, 901 North 5th Street,

Kansas City, KS 66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Debra L. Kring, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Superfund Division,

901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS

66101, (913) 551–7725, fax (913) 551–

7063.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion

V. Action

I. Introduction

The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), Region VII announces the

deletion of the John Deere Ottumwa

Works site, Ottumwa, Iowa from the

NPL, Appendix B of the National Oil

and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part

300. 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 these

sites. EPA and the Iowa Department of

Natural Resources (IDNR) have

determined that the remedial action at

the Site has been successfully executed.

EPA will accept comments on this

notice thirty days after publication of

this document in the Federal Register.

Section II of this action explains the

criteria for deleting sites from the NPL.

Section III discusses the procedures that

EPA is using for this action. Section IV

discusses the history of the John Deere

Ottumwa Site and explains how the Site

meets the deletion criteria. Section V

states EPA’s action to delete the releases

of the Site from the NPL unless

dissenting comments are received

during the comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP

provides that sites may be deleted from,

or recategorized on the NPL where no

further response is appropriate. In

making a determination to delete a

release 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

persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed

response under CERCLA has been

implemented, and no further response

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 70313

environment and, therefore, taking of

remedial measures is not appropriate.

Even if the 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 remedy

remains protective of public health and

the environment. A five-year review was

conducted at the John Deere Ottumwa

Works Site in 1998. Based on that

review, EPA in consultation with the

State, determined that conditions at the

site remain protective of human health

and the environment. As explained

below, the Site meets the NCP’s deletion

criteria listed above. 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 shall be restored

to the NPL without the application of

the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).

III. Deletion Procedures

The following procedures were used

for the intended deletion of the release

from this Site: (1) All appropriate

response under CERCLA has been

implemented and no further action by

EPA is appropriate; (2) The Iowa

Department of Natural Resources

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 dissenting

public review. The EPA is requesting

only dissenting comments on the Direct

Final Action to Delete.

For deletion of the release from the

Site, EPA’s Regional Office will accept

and evaluate public comments on EPA’s

Final Notice before making a final

decision to delete. If necessary the

Agency will prepare a Responsiveness

Summary, responding to each

significant comment submitted during

the public comment period. Deletion of

the site from the NPL does not itself

create, alter, or revoke any individual’s

rights or obligations. The NPL is

designated primarily for informational

purposes and to assist Agency

management. As mentioned in Section

II of this document, § 300.425(e)(3) of

the NCP states that the deletion of a

release from a site from the NPL does

not preclude eligibility for future

response actions.

IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion

The following site summary provides

the Agency’s rationale for the proposal

to delete this site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

The John Deere Ottumwa Works Site

is located in Ottumwa, Iowa, Wapello

County, and includes a 118-acre tract of

land which has been used for the

manufacture of farm implements since

1946. From 1911 until 1973, the

company disposed of approximately

3,000 tons of solvents, paint sludges,

acids, heavy metals, and cyanide on

site. The site is located 200 feet from

prime agricultural land. Approximately

700 people obtain drinking water from

private wells located within 3 miles of

the site. The main water supply for

Ottumwa, population 27,000, is the Des

Moines River; the intake is 4,000 feet

upstream from the John Deere landfills.

The river also is used for recreational

activities. The city’s secondary water

supply, which is used intermittently

throughout the year, is the Black Lake.

It is located 500 feet down gradient of

the on-site landfills. Low levels of

various heavy metals from site disposal

activities were detected in the soil,

surface water, and sediments. Also, low

levels of methylene chloride, a volatile

organic compound (VOC), were detected

in the soil and sediments. Potential risks

may have existed for individuals who

accidently ingested or came into direct

contact with the contaminated soil and

surface water.

The John Deere Ottumwa Works Site

was placed on the National Priorities

List (NPL) on February 21, 1990. Under

EPA oversight, the John Deere Company

began remedial investigation activities

in 1990 to determine the type and extent

of contamination. Field work was

completed in late 1990, and the

investigation was completed in late

1991. Based on the results of this

investigation, the EPA selected a

remedy requiring the John Deere

Company to maintain the existing fence

around the site and to continue

monitoring the groundwater to ensure

that it remains safe. In addition, the

property and State Highway right-ofway deed restrictions now limit site use

to non-residential activities. A Record of

Decision (ROD) explaining the remedy

selected for this site was signed by EPA

on September 23, 1991.

In September 1992, the John Deere

Company and the Department of

Transportation entered into a Consent

Decree with EPA to implement the

selected remedy. Since that time, EPA

has continued to conduct oversight

activities, as well as reviewing and

evaluating sampling data provided by

the John Deere Company. In January

1998, a Five-Year Review Report was

signed by EPA which defined current

site conditions, remedy protectiveness,

and recommendations for next steps. As

one of the recommendations, EPA

responded to a September 1997 Deere

Company request that certain

monitoring wells be abandoned in

accordance with State and federal

regulations. The EPA requested that one

full round of sampling be conducted

prior to the abandonment exercise to

discern compound levels and evaluate

which wells would remain as

background wells to prevent off-site

migration of contamination. Sampling

was conducted in March 1999 at 11

monitoring wells and 2 piezometers for

total arsenic, barium, cadmium,

chromium, lead, VOCs, and semivolatiles. Sampling results showed no

levels above MCLs. Based on this

outcome, eight (8) wells and 1

piezometer were abandoned in January

2000 in accordance with State and

federal regulations.

The Five-Year Review was completed

in January 1998 and indicated that

remedial objectives had been met. These

objectives include institutional controls

which require the maintenance of an

eight-foot high chain-link fence topped

with barbed wire, and the lodging of

deed restrictions which prevent the

future development of residences or

other similar exposure situations on

site. Groundwater and surface water

monitoring will hereby be discontinued

subsequent to future Five-Year Reviews

which may reveal the need for

additional monitoring. The selected

remedy does not reduce toxicity,

mobility, or volume through treatment,

however, it has been determined by EPA

to represent the maximum extent

required to protect human health and

the environment. The remedy selection

also ensures on a long-term basis that

the sensitive population, children, are

not exposed to site waste, thereby

preventing the only potentially

unacceptable exposure scenario from

occurring. The Hazard Index (HI)

associated with children directly

contacting waste material is slightly

above one. No unacceptable site-related

cancer risks were identified. There were

no Federal or State ARARs to be

considered for this remedy.

Operations and Maintenance

Limited maintenance is required at

this site. Long-term maintenance and

groundwater monitoring have been

conducted by the John Deere Ottumwa

Company. This site is also an active

RCRA facility and is monitored by

70314 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 22, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

RCRA as well as the Superfund

Program.

Five-Year Review

The Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA) requires five-year review

of all sites where hazardous substances

remain above health-based levels for

unrestricted use of the site. Under

CERCLA Section 121(c), a review is also

conducted to ensure that the selected

remedy continues to be protective of

human health and the environment. The

next five-year review at this site is

scheduled for the year 2003.

V. Action

The remedy selected for this site has

been implemented in accordance with

the Record of Decision. Therefore, no

further response action is necessary.

The remedy has resulted in the

significant reduction of the long-term

potential for release of contaminants,

therefore, human health and potential

environmental impacts have been

minimized. The EPA and the Iowa

Department of Natural Resources find

that the remedy implemented continues

to provide adequate protection of

human health and the environment.

The EPA, with concurrence of the

State of Iowa, has determined that the

criteria for deletion of the release have

been met. Therefore, EPA is deleting the

site from the NPL.

This action will be effective January

22, 2001. However, if EPA receives

dissenting comments by December 22,

2000, EPA will publish a document that

withdraws this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: August 17, 2000.

William Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VII.

Part 300, title 40 of chapter 1 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 300

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56FR 54757, 3CFR,

1991 Comp.; p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,

3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p.193.

Appendix B [Amended]

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300

is amended by removing the site for

‘‘John Deere Ottumwa Works Landfills,

Ottumwa, Iowa’’.

[FR Doc. 00–29642 Filed 11–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 444

[FRL–6866–7]

RIN 2040–AC23

Effluent Limitations Guidelines,

Pretreatment Standards, and New

Source Performance Standards for the

Commercial Hazardous Waste

Combustor Subcategory of the Waste

Combustors Point Source Category;

Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical

amendment.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency promulgated regulations

establishing effluent limitations and

pretreatment standards for the

Commercial Hazardous Waste

Subcategory of the Waste Combustors

Point Source Category. The final rule

was published in the Federal Register

on January 27, 2000. Due to a formatting

error, the published text includes two

references on the wrong line of text.

Also, a formatting error caused part of

§ 444.12(b)(1) to be misidentified as

§ 444.12(b)(2). This document places the

references in the correct location and

removes the incorrect section

identification.

DATES: Effective on November 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Samantha Lewis, 202–260–7149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

553 of the Administrative Procedure

Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that,

when an agency for good cause finds

that notice and public procedure are

impracticable, unnecessary or contrary

to the public interest, the agency may

issue a rule without providing notice

and an opportunity for public comment.

EPA has determined that there is good

cause for making today’s rule final

without prior proposal and opportunity

for comment because the corrections are

non-substantive, formatting revisions.

Thus, notice and public procedure are

unnecessary. EPA finds that this

constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B).

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

is therefore not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget.

Because the agency has made a ‘‘good

cause’’ finding that this action is not

subject to notice-and-comment

requirements under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute, it is

not subject to the regulatory flexibility

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections

202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public

Law 104–4). In addition, this action

does not significantly or uniquely affect

small governments or impose a

significant intergovernmental mandate,

as described in sections 203 and 204 of

UMRA. This rule also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

This technical correction does not

involve technical standards; thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. The rule also

does not involve special consideration

of environmental justice related issues

as required by Executive Order 12898

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In

issuing this rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct, as

required by section 3 of Executive Order

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996).

EPA has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order. This rule does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

EPA’s compliance with these statutes

and Executive Orders for the underlying