55296 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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.’’ This 

final rule directly regulates growers, 

food processors, food handlers and food 

retailers, not States. This action does not 

alter the relationships or distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

by Congress in the preemption 

provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the 

FFDCA. For these same reasons, the 

Agency has determined that this rule 

does not have any ‘‘tribal implications’’

as described in Executive Order 13175, 

entitled Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000). Executive 

Order 13175, requires EPA to develop 

an accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’ This 

rule will not have substantial direct 

effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of this final 

rule in the Federal Register. This final 

rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 

5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 14, 2005. 

Meredith F. Laws, 

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 

371. 

§ 180.1045 and § 180.1066 [Removed] 

■ 2. Sections 180.1045 and 180.1066 are 

removed. 

§ 180.910 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 180.910 is amended by 

removing from the table the entries for 

Ethylene methylphenyglycidate; 

Phosphorus oxychloride; Sulfurous 

acid; and 1,1,1-Trichloroethane. 

§ 180.920 [Amended] 

■ 4. Section 180.920 is amended by 

removing from the table the entries for: 

a. Acetonitrile; 

b. Almond, bitter; 

c. Aluminum 2-ethylhexanoate; 

d. 1,3-Butylene glycol 

dimethyacrylate; 

e. Calcium and sodium salts of certain 

sulfonated petroleum fractions 

(mahogany soaps); calcium salt 

molecular weight (in amu) 790–1,020, 

sodium salt molecular weight (in amu) 

400–500; 

f. Copper salts of neodecanoic acid 

and 2-ethylhexanoic acid; 

g. Diallyl phthalate; 

h. Dipropylene glycol dibenzoate; 

i. Ethyl methacrylate; 

j. Furfural byproduct (a granular 

steam-acid sterilized, lignocellulosic 

residuum in the extraction of furfural 

from corn cobs, sugarcane bagasse, 

cottonseed hulls, oat hulls, and rice 

hulls); 

k. Isopropylbenzene; 

l. Methyl isoamyl ketone; 

m. Methyl methacrylate; 

n. X-(p-Nonylphenyl)-v-hydroxypoly(oxyethylene) sulfosuccinate 

isopropylamine and N-hydroxyethyl 

isopropylamine salts of: The 

poly(oxyethylene) content averages r 

moles; 

o. Propylene dichloride; 

p. Sodium fluoride; 

q. Tetrasodium N-(1,2- 

dicarboxyethyl)-N-octadecylsulfosuccinamate; 

r. (2,2′(2,5-Thiophenediyl)bis(5-tertbutylbenzoxazole)) (CAS Reg. No. 7128–

64–5); and 

s. Tri-tert-butylphenol polyglycol 

ether (molecular weight (in amu) 746). 

§ 180.930 [Amended] 

■ 5. Section 180.930 is amended by 

removing from the table the entries for: 

a. Acetylated lanolin alcohol; 

b. Calcium and sodium salts of certain 

sulfonated petroleum fractions 

(mahogany soaps); calcium salt 

molecular weight (in amu) 790–1020, 

sodium salt molecular weight (in amu) 

400–500; 

c. Cumene (isopropylbenzene); 

d. Dibutyltin dilaurate (CAS Reg. No. 

77–58–7); 

e. 4,4′-Isopropylidenediphenol alkyl 

(C12-C15) phosphites (CAS Reg. No. 

92908–32–2); 

f. Polyethylene esters of fatty acids, 

conforming to 21 CFR 172.854; 

g. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane; 

h. Triethylene glycol diacetate (CAS 

Reg. No. 111–21–7); and 

i. Tri-tert-butylphenol polyglycol 

ether (molecular weight (in amu) 746). 

[FR Doc. 05–18831 Filed 9–20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[FRL–7971–3] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan; National 

Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final notice of partial 

deletion of the East Tailing Area of the 

Tar Lake Superfund Site from the 

National Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 5 is publishing a 

notice of partial deletion of the East 

Tailing Area of the Tar Lake Superfund 

Site (Site), located in, Antrim County 

Michigan, from the National Priorities 

List (NPL). 

The NPL, promulgated pursuant to 

section 105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, in 

appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which 

is the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(NCP). This notice of partial deletion is 

being published by EPA with the 

concurrence of the State of Michigan, 

through the Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 

Remedial investigation results in the 

East Tailing Area of the Tar Lake Site 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 55297 

have shown that no threat to public 

health or the environment exist and, 

therefore, the taking of remedial 

measures under CERCLA is not 

necessary at this time. 

DATES: This notice of partial deletion 

will be effective November 21, 2005, 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by October 21, 2005. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

notice of partial deletion in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

partial deletion will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed 

to: Stuart Hill, Community Involvement 

Coordinator, U.S. EPA (P–19J), 77 W. 

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. 

Electronic comments may be sent to 

bloom.thomas@epa.gov. 

Information Repositories: 

Comprehensive information about the 

Site is available for viewing and copying 

at the Site information repositories 

located at: EPA Region 5 Record Center, 

77 W. Jackson, Chicago, Il 60604, (312) 

353–5821, Monday through Friday 8 

a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; Mancelona Public 

Library, 202 W. State Street, Mancelona, 

MI 49945, (231) 587–9451. Monday 

through Friday 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Tuesday and Thursday 6 p.m to 8 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Bloom, Remedial Project 

Manager at (312) 886–1967, 

bloom.thomas@epa.gov or Gladys 

Beard, State NPL Deletion Process 

Manager at (312) 886–7253, 

Beard.Gladys@EPA.Gov or 1–800–621–

8431, (SR–6J), U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. 

Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Partial Deletion Criteria 

III. Partial Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Partial Deletion 

V. Partial Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region 5 is publishing this notice 

of partial deletion of the East Tailing 

Area of the Tar Lake, Superfund Site 

from the NPL. The East Tailing Area of 

the Tar Lake Site, as described in the 

Remedial Investigation Report for 

Operable Unit 2, August 7, 2000, 

consists of approximately 40 acres of 

land east of Peckham Lake. 

The EPA identifies sites that appear to 

present a significant risk to public 

health or the environment and 

maintains the NPL as the list of those 

sites. As described in section 

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

deleted from the NPL remain eligible for 

remedial actions if conditions at the 

partially deleted site warrant such 

action. 

This action will be effective 

November 21, 2005 unless EPA receives 

adverse comments by October 21, 2005, 

on this document. If adverse comments 

are received within the 30-day public 

comment period on this document, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal of this 

partial deletion before the effective date 

of the partial deletion and the partial 

deletion will not take effect. EPA will, 

as appropriate, prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the partial 

deletion process on the basis of the 

notice of intent to partially delete and 

the comments already received. There 

will be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for partial deletion of sites 

from the NPL. Section III discusses 

procedures that EPA is using for this 

action. Section IV discusses the East 

Tailing Area of the Tar Lake Superfund 

Site and demonstrates how it meets the 

partial deletion criteria. Section V 

discusses EPA’s action to partially 

delete the East Tailing Area from the 

NPL unless adverse comments are 

received during the public comment 

period. 

II. NPL Partial Deletion Criteria 

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP 

provides that releases may be partially 

deleted from 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 

(Hazardous Substance Superfund 

Response Trust Fund) responses under 

CERCLA have 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 

environment and, therefore, the taking 

of remedial measures is not appropriate. 

Even if a portion of a site is deleted 

from the NPL, where hazardous 

substances, pollutants, or contaminants 

remain at the portion of the deleted site 

above levels that allow for unlimited 

use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA 

section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c), 

requires that a subsequent review of the 

deleted portion of the site be conducted 

at least every five years after the 

initiation of the remedial action at the 

site to ensure that the action remains 

protective of public health and the 

environment. If new information 

becomes available which indicates a 

need for further action, EPA may initiate 

remedial actions. Whenever there is a 

significant release from the portion 

deleted from the NPL, the deleted 

portion of the site may be restored to the 

NPL without application of the hazard 

ranking system. 

III. Partial Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to 

partial deletion of this Site: 

(1) The EPA consulted with the State 

of Michigan on the partial deletion of 

the East Tailing Area of the Site from 

the NPL prior to developing this notice 

of partial deletion. 

(2) Michigan concurred with partial 

deletion of the East Tailing Area of the 

Site from the NPL. 

(3) Concurrently with the publication 

of this notice of partial deletion, a notice 

of intent to partially delete is published 

today in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section 

of the Federal Register, is being 

published in a major local newspaper of 

general circulation at or near the Site, 

and is being distributed to appropriate 

federal, state, and local government 

officials and other interested parties. 

The newspaper notice announces the 

30-day public comment period 

concerning the notice of intent to 

partially delete the East Tailing Area of 

the Site from the NPL. 

(4) The EPA placed copies of 

documents supporting the partial 

deletion of the East Tailing Area in the 

Site information repositories identified 

above. 

(5) If adverse comments are received 

within the 30-day public comment 

period on this document, EPA will 

publish a timely notice of withdrawal of 

this notice of partial deletion before its 

effective date and will prepare a 

response to comments and continue 

with a decision on the partial deletion 

based on the notice of intent to partially 

delete and the comments already 

received. 

Partial deletion of the East Tailing 

Area of the Site from the NPL does not 

itself create, alter, or revoke any 

individual’s rights or obligations. Partial 

deletion of the East Tailing Area of the 

Site from the NPL does not in any way 

alter EPA’s right to take enforcement 

actions, as appropriate. The NPL is 

designed primarily for informational 

purposes and to assist EPA 

management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of 

the NCP states that the partial deletion 

of a site from the NPL does not preclude 

eligibility for future response actions 

should future conditions warrant such 

actions. 

55298 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

IV. Basis for Partial Deletion 

The following information provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting the East 

Tailing Area of this Site from the NPL: 

Site Location 

The Tar Lake Superfund site (the Site) 

is located in Mancelona Township, 

Antrim County, Michigan. It is a former 

iron manufacturing facility that 

operated between 1882 and 1945. 

Response actions at the Tar Lake 

Superfund site have been separated into 

two operable units. The first operable 

unit (OU1), addressed tar contamination 

in a 4-acre depression of the 200-acre 

site by removing and transporting 

approximately 47,000 tons of tar to an 

energy recovery facility. The second 

operable unit (OU2), addressed 

remaining contamination throughout 

the 200-acre site. 

Site History 

Beginning in 1882 and continuing 

through 1945, the Tar Lake site was the 

location of an iron production facility. 

The Antrim Iron Works Company used 

the charcoal method to produce iron. In 

1910, the Antrim Iron Works Company 

began producing charcoal in sealed 

retorts from which pyroligneous (made 

by destructive distillation of wood) 

liquor was recovered. A secondary 

chemical manufacturing process was 

applied to the recovered pyroligneous 

liquor at the iron works. The 

pyroligneous liquor was further 

processed into calcium acetate, 

methanol, acetone, creosote oil, and a 

tarry-like waste residue—referred to 

throughout this document as tar. The tar 

was discharged into a 4-acre on-site 

depression. The secondary chemical 

process generated tar waste until 1944. 

Tar and water that remained in this 

depression are referred to as Tar Lake. 

As early as 1949, the groundwater 

coming from the Tar Lake was 

discovered to be contaminated with 

phenolic compounds. Tar Lake caught 

fire in 1969 and burned for several 

months before being extinguished by 

natural action. 

Mount Clemens Metal Products 

Company owned and periodically used 

the Tar Lake area of the Site for waste 

disposal from 1957 until 1967. Gulf and 

Western Manufacturing Company, 

successor to Mount Clemens Metal 

Products Company, owned the property 

from 1967 to approximately 1982. In 

December 1982, Gulf and Western 

Manufacturing Company dissolved due 

to a merger with Gulf and Western, Inc. 

In 1985, Gulf and Western Inc., sold the 

property to Fifty-Sixth Century Antrim 

Iron Works Company (56th Century). In 

April 1989, Gulf and Western Inc., 

merged with Paramount 

Communications, Inc. Officials of 56th 

Century, at the Tar Lake site are 

employees of Paramount 

Communications Realty Corporation, a 

wholly-owned subsidiary of Paramount 

Communications, Inc. In 1994, Viacom 

International, Inc., acquired Paramount 

Communications, Inc., and 56th Century 

is currently a subsidiary of French 

Street Management, Inc., a subsidiary of 

Viacom International, Inc. In November 

1999, the Community Resource 

Development (CRD) Inc., a non-profit 

community development organization, 

purchased approximately 88 acres of the 

200 acre Tar Lake site. Current property 

owners include CRD Inc., Collins 

Aikman Products, Mancelona 

Township, and Mr. John Apfel. 

The Tar Lake site was placed on the 

National Priorities List (NPL) in 

September 1983. On April 21, 1986, the 

U.S. EPA and 56th Century, a subsidiary 

of Viacom International, Inc., signed an 

Administrative Order on Consent (AOC 

1986) which required that 56th Century 

conduct a two-phase Remedial 

Investigation (RI). Phase I was to 

develop a Preliminary Endangerment 

Assessment (PEA). Phase II was to be a 

more detailed investigation based on the 

results of the PEA. 56th Century 

installed a fence around the 4-acre Tar 

Lake and included an additional 14 

acres of the Retort and Chemical 

Production Area where on-site 

structures and waste piles existed. 

The PEA was submitted in October 

1988, and it concluded that the 

contaminants in the groundwater did 

not pose a threat. EPA found the PEA 

to be deficient because it relied upon 

data which were inadequately and 

incompletely collected, and its 

conclusions were not adequately 

supported. EPA did not approve the 

PEA. In 1989, 56th Century performed 

additional investigative-type work 

required by EPA. This additional work 

found that there was a connection 

between the tar and groundwater. 

Groundwater beneath Tar Lake was 

found to contain over 50 compounds 

that were also found in the tar. It also 

was discovered that benzene and 

styrene were present in on-site 

groundwater at levels above the Safe 

Drinking Water Act—Maximum 

Contaminant Levels (MCLs). EPA 

determined that a source control and 

groundwater containment Operable Unit 

(OU1) was appropriate for the Site. 

The 1986 AOC was amended in 

August 1990 to have 56th Century 

conduct a Phased Feasibility Study 

Report, to address OU1. 56th Century 

submitted an unacceptable Phased 

Feasibility Study Report which utilized 

a risk assessment based on the 

unapproved PEA. EPA took over the 

preparation of the Phased Feasibility 

Study report. EPA completed the report 

in March 1992. A Record of Decision 

(ROD for OU1) was issued in September 

1992, selecting consolidation of the tar 

and contaminated soil in on-site 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) containment cells and 

interim groundwater treatment. A 

second Operable Unit (OU2) was 

planned to address final groundwater 

clean up. 

Pre-design studies were conducted at 

the Tar Lake site from October 1993 to 

June 1994. The pre-design studies 

yielded data about tar management 

alternatives and media treatability 

which resulted in a reassessment of the 

selected remedial alternative presented 

in the 1992 ROD for OU1. An 

Explanation of Significant Differences 

(ESD for OU1) was issued in July 1998, 

which documents modification to the 

tar component of the 1992 ROD for 

OU1. The ESD for OU1 explained that 

instead of storing the excavated tar on 

site in RCRA containment cells, tar 

would be transported off site to an enduser or an energy recovery facility. 

In July 1998, EPA began a response 

action which included the excavation 

and transportation of tar from the 4-acre 

Tar Lake. In July 1999, EPA completed 

the removal of 47,043 tons of tar and tar 

debris, backfilled the 4-acre tar lake 

depression with 1-foot of clean soil, and 

installed a temporary poly-liner in the 

lower areas of the 4-acre tar lake 

depression. MDEQ took on the 

responsibility of the management of 

storm water collected in the liner. The 

tar from Tar Lake was transported to 

two energy recovery facilities. In 

conjunction with EPA’s response action, 

MDEQ installed and began to operate, 

on an intermittent basis, an in-situ 

biosparge system for on-site 

groundwater treatment. Currently, the 

in-situ biosparge system is operated 

approximately 8 hours per day, seven 

days per week. From November 1999 to 

June 2002, MDEQ provided bottled 

water to residents with site-related iron 

and manganese concentrations in their 

off-site groundwater wells above State 

Secondary Drinking Water Standards. 

Currently, a State funded municipal 

water system has been extended to the 

affected residents. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (OU2) 

In June 1999, EPA conducted RI 

fieldwork to address OU2. The RI for 

OU2 investigated residual 

contamination remaining beneath the 4- 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 55299 

acre Tar Lake and surface areas 

potentially impacted by the Antrim Iron 

Works Company’s iron manufacturing 

processes. Historical information was 

researched and the knowledge gained 

was used to identify several production 

areas and the operational history of the 

iron manufacturing processes that may 

have produced potential areas of 

concern. 

Within the 200-acre Tar Lake site, (the 

Iron Production Area, Creosote Area, 

Nelson Lake, Peckham Lake, East 

Tailing Area, Tar Lake Area, and Retort 

and Chemical Production Area), surface 

and subsurface soil, sediment, surface 

water and on-site groundwater samples 

were collected and analyzed for general 

chemistry, metals, phenolic compounds, 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 

semi-volatile organic compounds 

(SVOCs). 

Off-site areas of concern investigated 

were a drainage ditch adjacent to the 

site, off-site groundwater and a seepage 

area where off-site groundwater 

discharges to Saloon Creek. Samples 

collected from off-site areas were 

analyzed for general chemistry, metals, 

phenolic compounds, volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and semi-volatile 

organic compounds (SVOCs). Results of 

the RI for OU2 indicated that 

approximately 45,000 tons of residual 

tar remained in the ‘‘rind’’ beneath the 

4-acre depression and was the source of 

on-site groundwater contamination. 

During the RI, it was determined that 

benzene in on-site groundwater 

presented an unacceptable risk because 

it was above maximum contaminant 

levels, and levels of 2,4-dimethylphenol 

exceeded the State drinking water 

standards. In addition, tar/creosote 

waste was discovered on the surface in 

the Creosote Area which also presented 

an unacceptable risk. 

Record of Decision for OU2 Findings 

In February 2002, the ROD for OU2 

was issued to address these 

unacceptable risks. Components of this 

selected remedy were: 

a. Removal of on-site foundations and 

miscellaneous debris impeding 

remedation; 

b. Removal of the poly-liner to 

enhance infiltration of precipitation to 

flush contaminants to groundwater; 

c. Bioventing of approximately 45,000 

tons of rind material; 

d. Installation of a groundwater 

circulation system for approximately 

45,000 tons of rind material; 

e. Continued operation of the on-site 

groundwater biosparge system to treat 

contaminants in the on-site groundwater 

(costs $48,000 per year); 

f. Institutional controls including 

recording legal notices on property 

deeds to restrict on-site groundwater 

use; 

g. Long-term monitoring to assess 

groundwater conditions over time 

($2,000 per event): and 

h. Excavation of approximately 15,000 

tons of tar/creosote waste from the 

Creosote Area and transportation to an 

energy recovery facility. 

On page 2 of the Declaration section, 

and on page 27 of the Decision 

Summary section in the 2002 ROD for 

OU2, it was explained that EPA would 

evaluate the amount of rind beneath the 

4-acre depression and determine 

whether it would be more cost effective 

to remove the rind rather than install 

the bioventing and groundwater 

circulation systems. Results of 

predesign data collection, which 

followed the RI for OU2, indicated that 

there was approximately 21,000 tons of 

rind in the 4-acre depression, as 

compared to the initial estimate of 

45,000 tons. In addition, the amount of 

tar/creosote waste found in the Creosote 

Area amounted to only 225 tons, as 

compared to 15,000 tons. In September 

2004, an Explanation of Significant 

Differences (ESD for OU2) was issued to 

document a change of two remedial 

action components from bioventing and 

groundwater circulation of the rind to 

excavation and off-site disposal. The 

remedial action component to address 

tar/creosote waste found in the Creosote 

Area was changed from excavation and 

transportation to an energy recovery 

facility to excavation and off-site 

disposal. 

Through groundwater modeling and 

groundwater sampling conducted 

during the RI for OU2, EPA was 

confident that if the rind was removed, 

on-site groundwater would decrease to 

acceptable levels in between one to 

three years. Evaluation of current 

groundwater monitoring data 

upgradient and downgradient of the 

biosparge system indicates that the 

biosparge system is operating as 

designed and is effective. 

Contamination was not found in the 

East Tailing Area of the Tar Lake Site. 

EPA does not anticipate an adverse 

impact from this partial deletion. The 

East Tailing Area is upgradient from the 

contaminated rind and EPA has no 

further concern with groundwater 

beneath the East Tailing Area. 

Characterization of Risk 

The Remedial Investigation for OU2 

has shown that there is no 

contamination present in the East 

Tailing Area. Therefore, there is not an 

unacceptable risk in the East Tailing 

Area. No additional response action is 

required at the East Tailing Area of the 

Tar Lake Site. The current conditions at 

the East Tailing Area are protective of 

human health and the environment. 

Response Action for OU2 

On June 14, 2004, EPA began 

remedial construction activities. Site 

preparation such as mobilization of 

equipment, road building, pad 

construction and removal of top soil and 

overburden continued until July 3, 

2004. Approximately 4,000 cubic yards 

of top soil and 8,000 cubic yards of 

overburden (non-impacted soil and slag) 

were excavated from the 4-acre 

depression above the rind. 

On July 7, 2004 and continuing 

through August 28, 2004, 21,482 tons of 

rind and 225 tons tar/creosote waste 

from the Creosote Area were excavated 

and disposed of locally at an approved 

RCRA Subtitle D landfill in Federick, 

Michigan. Removal of on-site 

foundations and miscellaneous debris 

impeding remediation and removal of 

the poly-liner to enhance infiltration 

were also completed. Remedial action 

costs associated with these activities 

were approximately $1,200,000. 

A pre-final inspection was conducted 

by EPA and MDEQ on September 20, 

2004. Site restoration activities such as 

backfilling, regrading and seeding the 4- 

acre depression had been properly 

conducted. Decontamination and 

demobilization of all equipment was 

completed at that time. The work 

trailers were demobilized the following 

day, which was September 21, 2004. 

EPA and MDEQ have determined that 

RA construction activities have been 

performed according to specifications 

and anticipate that removal and off-site 

disposal of the rind material will meet 

remedial action objectives for the Tar 

Lake Site. 

Cleanup Standards 

The objectives of the remedies were to 

ensure that by source removal, off-site 

groundwater would decrease over time 

and within 3 years, on-site groundwater 

would decrease to an acceptable level. 

Operation and Maintenance 

As part of the remedy requirement for 

long-term monitoring, EPA and MDEQ 

will conduct three groundwater 

sampling events per year. In addition, 

MDEQ will continue to operate the onsite biosparge system to treat residual 

contamination in the on-site 

groundwater. 

Five-Year Review 

Because hazardous substances will 

remain at other portions of the Tar Lake 

55300 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Site above levels that allow for 

unrestricted use and unlimited 

exposure, the EPA will conduct periodic 

reviews at this Site. The review will be 

conducted pursuant to CERCLA 121(c) 

and as provided in the current guidance 

on Five Year Reviews; OSWER Directive 

9355.7–03B–P, Comprehensive FiveYear Guidance, June 2001. The first fiveyear review for the Tar Lake Site is 

scheduled to be conducted before June 

2009. In the East Tailing Area of the Tar 

Lake Site, unlimited use and 

unrestricted access is allowed. 

Community Involvement 

Public participation activities have 

been satisfied as required in CERCLA 

section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and 

CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. 

Documents in the docket which EPA 

relied on for recommendation of the 

partial deletion of the East Tailing Area 

on the Tar Lake Site from the NPL are 

available to the public in the 

information repositories. 

V. Partial Deletion Action 

EPA, with concurrence of the State of 

Michigan, has determined that all 

appropriate responses under CERCLA 

have been completed, and that no 

further response actions, under CERCLA 

are necessary at the East Tailing Area. 

Therefore, EPA is deleting the East 

Tailing Area of the Tar Lake Site from 

the NPL. 

This action will be effective 

November 21, 2005, unless EPA receives 

adverse comments by October 21, 2005. 

If adverse comments are received within 

the 30-day public comment period, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal of this 

notice of partial deletion before the 

effective date of the partial deletion and 

it will not take effect. Concurrent with 

this action, EPA will prepare a response 

to comments and as appropriate 

continue with the partial deletion 

process on the basis of the notice of 

intent to partially delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

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: September 6, 2005. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region V. 

■ For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 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, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

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 under Michigan ‘‘MI’’ by 

removing the entry for ‘‘The East Tailing 

Area from the Tar Lake Site’’ and the 

township ‘‘Mancelona, Michigan.’’

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List 

TABLE 1.—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Sitename City/county (Notes) a

* * * * * * * 

MI ............................................................... Tar Lake .................................................... Antrim ........................................................ P 

* * * * * * * 

a * * * 

P=Sites with partial deletion(s). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–18834 Filed 9–20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1 and 54 

[CC Docket No. 02–6; FCC 04–190] 

Schools and Libraries Universal 

Service Support Mechanism 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC). 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission (Commission) announces 

that its rules adopted or amended in the 

Schools and Libraries Universal Service 

Support Mechanism Fifth Report and 

Order and Order (CC Docket No. 02–6; 

FCC 04–190), to the extent they 

contained information collection 

requirements that required approval by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), were approved, and became 

effective on November 12, 2004, 

following approval by OMB. 

DATES: The rules or amendments to 47 

CFR 1.8003, 54.504(b)(2), 54.504(c)(1), 

54.504(h), 54.508 and 54.516, published 

at 69 FR 55097, September 13, 2004 and 

corrected at 69 FR 59145, October 4, 

2004 became effective on November 12, 

2004. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Vickie Robinson, Deputy Chief, 

Wireline Competition Bureau, 

Telecommunications Access Policy 

Division, (202) 418–7400. For additional 

information concerning the information 

collection contained in this document, 

contact Judith-B. Herman at (202) 418–

0214, or at Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Schools and Libraries Universal Service 

Support Mechanism Fifth Report and 

Order and Order, the Commission 

adopted measures to protect against 

waste, fraud, and abuse in the 

administration of the schools and 

libraries universal service support 

mechanism (also known as the E-rate 

program). In particular, the Commission 

resolved a number of issues that have 

arisen from audit activities conducted as 

part of ongoing oversight over the 

administration of the universal service 

fund, and the Commission addressed 

programmatic concerns raised by its 

Office of Inspector General. A summary 

of the Schools and Libraries Universal 

Service Support Mechanism Fifth 

Report and Order and Order was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 13, 2004, 69 FR 55097, and 

corrected on October 4, 2004, 69 FR 

59145. In that summary, the 

Commission stated that with the 

exception of rules requiring OMB 

approval, the rules adopted in the 

Schools and Libraries Universal Service