Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40685

Department of Environmental Quality,

Office of Spill Response and

Remediation, Underground Storage

Tank Program, 4949-A Cox Road, Glen

Allen, Virginia 23060, unless

insufficient public interest is expressed.

The public may also submit written

comments on EPA’s tentative

determination until September 4, 1998.

Copies of the State’s application are

available for inspection and copying at

the locations indicated in the

ADDRESSEES section of this document.

EPA will consider all public

comments on its tentative determination

received at the public hearing, if a

hearing is held, and during the public

comment period. Issues raised by those

comments may be the basis for a

decision to deny approval to the State.

EPA will give notice of its final decision

in the Federal Register; the document

will include a summary of the reasons

for the final determination and a

response to all significant comments.

C. Compliance With Executive Order

12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from the

requirements of section 6 of Executive

Order 12866.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

certain regulatory actions on State,

local, and tribal governments and the

private sector. Under sections 202 and

205 of the UMRA, EPA generally must

prepare a written statement of economic

and regulatory alternatives analyses for

proposed and final rules with Federal

mandates, as defined by the UMRA, that

may result in expenditures to State,

local, and tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

The section 202 and 205 requirements

do not apply to today’s action because

it is not a ‘‘Federal mandate’’ and

because it does not impose annual costs

of $100 million or more.

Today’s rule contains no Federal

mandates for State, local or tribal

governments or the private sector for

two reasons. First, today’s action does

not impose new or additional

enforceable duties on any State, local or

tribal governments or the private sector

because the requirements of the Virginia

program are already imposed by the

State and subject to State law. Second,

the Act also generally excludes from the

definition of a ‘‘Federal mandate’’ duties

that arise from participation in a

voluntary Federal program. Virginia

participation in an approved UST

program is voluntary.

Even if today’s rule did contain a

Federal mandate, this rule will not

result in annual expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and/or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

the private sector. Costs to State, local

and/or tribal governments already exist

under the Virginia program, and today’s

action does not impose any additional

obligations on regulated entities. In fact,

EPA’s approval of state programs

generally may reduce, not increase,

compliance costs for the private sector.

The requirements of section 203 of

UMRA also do not apply to today’s

action. Before EPA establishes any

regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, section 203 of the UMRA

requires EPA to develop a small

government agency plan. This rule

contains no regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments. The Agency

recognizes that although small

governments may own and/or operate

USTs, they are already subject to the

regulatory requirements under existing

state law which are being approved by

EPA, and, thus, are not subject to any

additional significant or unique

requirements by virtue of this program

approval.

E. Certification Under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act

EPA has determined that this

approval will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Such small

entities which own and/or operate USTs

are already subject to the regulatory

requirements under existing State law

which are being approved by EPA.

EPA’s approval does not impose any

additional burdens on these small

entities. This is because EPA’s approval

would simply result in an

administrative change, rather than a

change in the substantive requirements

imposed on these small entities.

Therefore, EPA provides the following

certification under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, as amended by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act: Pursuant to the provision

at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that

this approval will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. This rule

approves regulatory requirements under

existing State law to which small

entities are already subject. It does not

impose any new burdens on small

entities. This rule, therefore, does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Federal agencies

must consider the paperwork burden

imposed by an information request

contained in a proposed rule or a final

rule. This rule will not impose any

information requirements upon the

regulated community.

G. Compliance With Executive Order

13045

Executive Order 13045 applies to any

rule that the Office of Management and

Budget determines is ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and that EPA determines

that the environmental health or safety

risk addressed by the rule has a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

The Agency has determined that the

proposed rule is not a covered

regulatory action as defined in the

Executive Order because it is not

economically significant and does not

address environmental health and safety

risks. As such, the proposed rule is not

subject to the requirements of Executive

Order 13045.

Authority: This notice is issued under the

authority of Section 9004 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act as amended

42 U.S.C. 6991c.

Dated: July 17, 1998.

Thomas Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 3.

[FR Doc. 98–20412 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6131–3]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the

Frontera Creek Site from the National

Priorities List; Request for Comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), Region II, announces its

intent to delete the Frontera Creek

Superfund Site (Site) from the National
40686 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Priorities List (NPL) and requests public

comment on this action. The NPL, 40

CFR Part 300, Appendix B was

promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of

the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the National

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part

300. EPA and the Puerto Rico

Environmental Quality Board (PREQB)

have determined that all appropriate

response/remedial actions have been

completed and no further remedial

action is appropriate under CERCLA. In

addition, EPA and PREQB have

determined that remedial activities

conducted to date at the Site have been

protective of public health, welfare, and

the environment.

DATES: Comments concerning the

deletion of the Site from the NPL may

be submitted on or before August 31,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted to: Luis E. Santos, Remedial

Project Manager, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region II, Caribbean

Environmental Protection Division,

Centro Europa Building, Suite 417, 1492

Ponce de Leo ́n Ave., Stop 22, San Juan,

Puerto Rico 00907–4127.

Comprehensive information on the

Site is contained in the EPA public

docket and is available for viewing, by

appointment only, at: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II, Caribbean Environmental

Protection Division, Centro Europa

Building, Suite 417, 1492 Ponce de Leo ́n

Ave., Stop 22, San Juan, Puerto Rico

00907–4127, Phone: (787) 728–6951,

extension 223, Hours: 8:30 A.M. to 4:30

P.M.—Monday through Friday

(excluding holidays); Contact: Luis E.

Santos.

Information on the Site is also

available for viewing at the Site

Administrative Record Repositories

located at: P.R. Environmental Quality

Board, National Plaza Bank, 431 Ponce

de Leo ́n Ave., Hato Rey, Puerto Rico

00917, Contact: Mr. Genarro Torres,

Phone: (787) 766–2823, Hours: 8:30

A.M. to 4:30 P.M.—Monday through

Friday (excluding holidays); and the

Humacao Town Hall, Humacao, Puerto

Rico, Contact: Mayor’s Office Secretary,

Phone: (787) 852–3066.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis

E. Santos, (787) 728–6951 Ext. 223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

The Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) Region II announces its intent to

delete the Frontera Creek Site,

Humacao, Puerto Rico from the National

Priorities List (NPL), 40 CFR Part 300,

and requests public comment on this

deletion. The NPL is Appendix B to the

National Oil and Hazardous Substances

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),

which the EPA promulgated pursuant to

Section 105 of CERCLA, as amended.

The EPA identifies sites that appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

maintains the NPL as the list of those

sites. Sites on the NPL may be the

subject of remedial actions financed by

the Hazardous Substance Superfund

(the Fund). Pursuant to § 300.425(e)(3)

of the NCP, any site deleted from the

NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed

remedial actions, if conditions at the

site warrant such action.

The EPA will accept comments on the

proposal to delete this Site from the

NPL for 30 days after publication of this

document in the Federal Register until

August 31, 1998.

Section II of this document explains

the criteria for deleting sites from the

NPL. Section III discusses procedures

that the EPA is using for this action.

Section IV discusses how the Site meets

the NPL 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)(1)(i)–(iii), sites may be

deleted from the NPL where no further

response is appropriate. In making this

determination, EPA, in consultation

with PREQB, will consider whether any

of the following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible or other persons have

implemented all appropriate response

actions required; or

(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 to

the environment and, therefore, taking

remedial measures is not appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

The NCP provides that the EPA shall

not delete a site from the NPL until the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has

concurred, and the public has been

afforded an opportunity to comment on

the proposed deletion. Deletion of a site

from the NPL does not affect responsible

party liability or impede agency efforts

to recover costs associated with

response efforts. The NPL is designed

primarily for information purposes and

to assist Agency management.

EPA Region II will accept and

evaluate public comments before

making a final decision to delete the

site. The Agency believes that deletion

procedures should include public notice

and comment at the local level.

Comments from the local community

may be pertinent to deletion decisions.

The following procedures were used for

the intended deletion of the Site:

1. EPA determined the appropriate

remedies at this site in a Record of

Decision dated September 30, 1991.

2. Responsible parties conducted the

site clean-up as documented in a

Remedial Action Completion Report

dated May 1995.

3. EPA determined in a September

1997 Superfund Site Close Out Report

that all construction activities at this

site have been completed.

4. PREQB has concurred with the

deletion decision in letter dated March

27, 1998.

5. A Notice has been published in a

local newspaper and distributed to

appropriate federal, Commonwealth 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.

6. All relevant documents have been

made available for public review in the

local Site information repositories.

The comments received during the

comment period will be evaluated

before any final decision is made. EPA

Region II will prepare a Responsiveness

Summary, if necessary, which will

address the comments received during

the public comment period.

If after consideration of these

comments, the EPA decides to proceed

with the deletion, the EPA Regional

Administrator will place a Notice of

Deletion in the Federal Register. The

NPL will reflect any deletions in the

next final update. Public notices and

copies of the Responsiveness Summary,

if any, will be made available to local

residents by EPA Region II.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

The following summary provides the

Agency’s rationale for recommending

deletion of the Frontera Creek Site,

Humacao, Puerto Rico, from the NPL:

The Frontera Creek Site is located on

the eastern coast of Puerto Rico

approximately 1.5 miles east of the City

of Humacao. As defined in the Remedial

Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

Administrative Order on Consent, the

Frontera Creek Site includes Frontera
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40687

Creek downstream of Route 925, the

Frontera Lagoons, Madri Canal south of

Route 3, the Ciudad Cristiana housing

development (Cristiana), the 13

industries adjacent or in close proximity

to the creek, and the suspected dredge

spoil piles allegedly located on the bank

of Frontera Creek adjacent to Ciudad

Cristiana.

Industrial wastewaters from

industries within the Site were

discharged into the creek from 1971 to

1981. Public concern about the site

arose in 1977 following the death of

thirty cows that grazed in the area.

Since that time, the area has been

investigated by the EPA, PREQB and

several industries located in the

vicinity. This investigation confirmed

the presence of contaminants including

mercury in sediments and surface water

samples. As a result of the potential

threat to public health, in August 1983,

the Frontera Creek Site was included on

the EPA’s National Priorities List.

In February 1985, the Puerto Rico

Department of Health (PRDOH) found

elevated levels of mercury in blood and

urine samples from a number of

residents in the Ciudad Cristiana

development. In addition, the PREQB

found mercury in soil samples. As a

result, the Governor of Puerto Rico

ordered the evacuation of the residents

of the development. In March 1985, the

PRDOH requested that the EPA evaluate

the Ciudad Cristiana development for

mercury contamination. The residents

had alleged that during the construction

of their homes, the area was

contaminated. In response to this

request, and in coordination with the

Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry (ATSDR), the EPA

conducted a Focused Remedial

Investigation to assess mercury

contamination in the Ciudad Cristiana

development. Soil samples from the

Ciudad Cristiana development were

analyzed for mercury contamination.

ATSDR concluded that the mercury

levels found did not present an

immediate health threat to the residents

of Ciudad Cristiana.

On October 3, 1986, an

Administrative Order on Consent

(Consent Order) was issued by the EPA

pursuant to Section 106(a) of CERCLA.

The Consent Order required Miles

Diagnostics Corporation; Miles, Inc.;

Cooper Development Company; and

Revlon, Inc. (‘‘Settling Defendants’’) to

undertake a Remedial Investigation/

Feasibility Study (RI/FS) covering the

entire Frontera Creek Superfund Site.

A Remedial Investigation (RI) was

performed from January 1988 through

August 1989. The RI data indicated that

elevated concentrations of mercury

occurred primarily in surface soils at the

Technicon property and in sediments in

the Technicon ditch. The sampling done

at the Ciudad Cristiana development

and in the Frontera Creek itself did not

find mercury levels of concern.

A Record of Decision (ROD), which

selected the remedy for the Site, was

signed in September 1991. The selected

remedy called for the excavation and

proper disposal of all Site soils and

sediments with mercury concentration

in excess of 35 parts per million (ppm).

On July 8, 1992, Miles Diagnostics

Corporation; Miles Inc.; Cooper

Development Company; and Revlon,

Inc. (‘‘Settling Defendants’’) signed a

Consent Decree with the EPA for

implementation of the selected remedy.

Remedial Action was implemented

according to the approved Final

Remedial Design Report document,

dated December 27, 1994. Excavation

activities, initiated on March 7, 1995

were substantially completed as of

March 30, 1995. Off-site transportation

for disposal of rolloffs containing

excavated waste, was initiated on April

18, 1995 and completed on April 22,

1995.

The remediated Site areas, as required

by the ROD, were two areas within the

Technicon ditch (known as Areas 1 and

2) and one area near the former raw

materials storage area at the Technicon

facility (known as Area 3). The volumes

and media removed in each were Area

1—83 cubic yards of Technicon Ditch

sediments, Area 2—49 cubic yards of

Technicon Ditch sediments and Area

3—159 cubic yards of soils and 32 yards

of concrete. The Area 2 excavation was

expanded to remove an additional 33.5

cubic yards of sediments based on the

results of the post-excavation sampling

and analysis.

All the completion requirements for

this Site have been met as described in

the ‘‘Superfund Site Close Out Report’’

dated September 1997. Activities at the

Site have resulted in the removal of

mercury contaminated soils and

sediments from the Site and have

provided for the off-site disposal of

contaminated soils and sediments. EPA

has determined that responsible parties

have completed all appropriate response

action necessary under CERCLA at this

site and that no further construction

activities by responsible parties are

necessary. In addition, for the activities

undertaken at this Site under CERCLA,

EPA identified an air release of

methylene chloride. EPA determined

the source of the air release to be the

Squibb facility located within the Site.

Squibb voluntarily reduced emissions of

methylene chloride to acceptable levels.

Consequently, EPA is proposing

deletion of this Site from the NPL.

Documents supporting this action are

available in the docket.

The EPA and PREQB have determined

that the remedy implemented at the Site

is protective of human health and the

environment and that no further

cleanup by responsible parties is

appropriate. Hazardous substances were

cleaned up to levels that would allow

for unlimited use and unrestricted

access, therefore the five-year review

requirement of Section 121(c) of

CERCLA, as amended, is not applicable.

On September 30, 1997, the EPA signed

the Superfund Site Close Out Report for

the Site, prepared in accordance with

OSWER Directive 9320.2–09, ‘‘Close

Out Procedures for National Priorities

List Sites’’.

Dated: June 18, 1998.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region II.

[FR Doc. 98–20153 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6131–2]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the

U.S. Navy, Naval Security Group

Activity Superfund Site from the

National Priorities List. Request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region II Office

announces its intent to delete the

United States Navy, Naval Security

Group Activity Superfund Site (Site)

from the National Priorities List (NPL)

and requests public comment on this

action. The NPL, 40 CFR Part 300,

Appendix B was promulgated pursuant

to Section 105 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA) and the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part

300. EPA and the Puerto Rico

Environmental Quality Board (PREQB)

have determined that all appropriate

actions have been completed and no

further response action is appropriate

under CERCLA. In addition, EPA and

PREQB have determined that response

actions conducted to date at the Site