Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21425

September 1994 and was completed in

January 1995.

Following the demolition of the

former battery facility, it was discovered

that a cadmium nitrate tank located on

a pedestal immediately adjacent to the

plant had leaked onto the underlying

soil prior to the closing of the plant in

1979. In an attempt to remove this

cadmium-contaminated soil, a twentyby sixty-foot area was excavated to a

depth of approximately twenty feet

(approximately two feet above the

ground-water table). While postexcavation sampling of this area showed

that some cadmium contamination

remained in the saturated soils at levels

above the 20 mg/kg action level, and

low levels of cadmium were present in

the ground water, it was determined

that excavating an additional four feet of

contaminated soil (two feet below the

water table), placing two feet of

limestone at the bottom of the

excavation (to keep the cadmium

insoluble), and backfilling the

excavation with clean fill would be

protective of public health and the

environment.

At the completion of the marsh

remediation and restoration activities in

April 1995, the marsh was planted with

cattails, bull rush, arrow arrum, and

upland shrubs in specified areas.

The plant grounds were regraded and

reseeded in July 1995. Fourteen

monitoring wells remain in place on the

plant grounds for the long-term

monitoring of the ground water for

VOCs and cadmium.

In all, 189,265 tons of treated soils

and sediments were transported off-site

(via 1,979 railcars) to City Management

Landfill in Michigan. Chemical Waste

Management’s hazardous waste landfill

in Model City, New York received 906

tons of hazardous materials.

A Remedial Action Report associated

with the remediation of the adjacent

properties was approved on September

28, 1993. A Remedial Action Report

associated with the East Foundry Cove,

East Foundry Cove Marsh, Hudson

River in the vicinity of the Cold Spring

pier, the former battery facility, and

plant grounds portions of the site was

approved on September 18, 1995. A

Superfund Site Close-Out Report was

approved on September 28, 1995.

Summary of Operation and

Maintenance and Five-Year Review

Requirements

The cattails, bull rush, and arrow

arrum, as well as the upland shrubs, are

being monitored on a regular basis by

the warden of the adjacent National

Audubon sanctuary, Constitution

Marsh.

The Settling Defendants have agreed

to monitor the site for up to thirty years,

commencing with the first inspection/

monitoring event that occurred on

October 27, 1995.

The long-term monitoring program

consists of monitoring the groundwater,

East and West Foundry Cove sediments

and surface water and biological

sampling and analysis quarterly the first

year, semi-annually during years two

through five, and annually thereafter for

a total of thirty years.

Site inspections are to be coincident

with the monitoring events. The

inspections will include visual

observations of the marsh soil cover and

erosion controls, groundwater

monitoring wells, and general site

conditions. Maintenance, if required,

will consist of correcting observed

deficiencies (e.g., repairing ground

water monitoring wells) The fourteen

groundwater monitoring wells that

comprise the groundwater monitoring

program will be inspected to ensure

their integrity. They will be repaired

should they become damaged, or

replaced should they become nonfunctional.

So that EPA can evaluate the remedy’s

effectiveness, following each

inspection/sampling event, Gould Inc. is

to submit to EPA a monitoring and

inspection program report, summarizing

the inspection and sampling results, and

describing any corrective maintenance

actions that were taken. In addition, a

review of the long-term monitoring and

inspection program reports will be

performed five years after the

completion of the RA to assure that the

remedy remains effective in protecting

human health and the environment.

There are no operational requirements

related to the implemented remedy.

Summary of How the Deletion Criteria

Has Been Met

Based upon the results of RA sample

analyses, survey results, and site

inspections, the site meets the

requirements set forth in the RODs. All

contaminated soils and sediments above

the specific action levels set for each

operable unit were excavated and/or

dredged from those areas, treated and

disposed of off-site. East Foundry Cove

Marsh and the plant grounds have been

regraded with clean fill and restored. An

Explanation of Significant Differences,

dated May 1995, was issued by EPA to

address the pedestal area on the plant

grounds which exceeds the action level

at a depth of 20 feet. However, EPA

believes the placement of two feet of

limestone at the bottom of the

excavation to keep the cadmium

insoluble, and the backfilling of the

excavation with clean fill is protective

of public health and the environment.

EPA and the State have determined

that the response actions undertaken at

the Marathon Battery Company site are

protective of human health and the

environment.

In accordance with 40 CFR § 300.425

(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL

where no further response is

appropriate. EPA, in consultation with

the State, has determined that all

appropriate responses under CERCLA

have been implemented and that no

further cleanup by responsible parties is

appropriate. Having met the deletion

criteria, EPA proposes to delete the

Marathon Battery Company site from

the NPL.

The State has advised EPA that, upon

deletion of the Marathon Battery

Company site from the NPL, it proposes

to change the classification of the site on

its Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste

Sites from a Class 2 (a site where the

disposal of a consequential quantity of

hazardous waste has been confirmed

and presents a significant threat to the

environment or health) to a Class 4 (a

site that has been properly closed, but

requires continued operation,

maintenance, and/or monitoring).

Dated: April 12, 1996.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–11481 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 96–103; RM–8794]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Smith,

NV

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission requests

comments on a petition filed by Donegal

Enterprises, Inc., seeking the allotment

of Channel 271C3 to Smith, Nevada, as

the community’s first local aural

service. Channel 271C3 can be allotted

to Smith in compliance with the

Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements with a site

restriction of 3.9 kilometers (2.4 miles)

east, at coordinates 38–47–53 NL; 119–

16–55 WL, to avoid a short-spacing to

Station KSSJ, Channel 270B, Shingle

Springs, CA.
21426 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before June 27, 1996, and reply

comments on or before July 12, 1996.

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: Patrick A. Mulreany,

President, Donegal Enterprises, Inc.,

P.O. Box 123, Smith, Nevada 89430

(Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

96–103, adopted April 22, 1996, and

released May 6, 1996. The full text of

this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

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, International

Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

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

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.

Andrew J. Rhodes,

Acting Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and

Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 96–11760 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD20

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Special Rule for

the Conservation of the Northern

Spotted Owl on Non-Federal Lands

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed special rule;

additional information.

SUMMARY: On February 23, 1996, the

Service issued a Draft Environmental

Alternatives Analysis (EAA) for the

proposed special section 4(d)rule for the

conservation of the northern spotted

owl on non-Federal lands in California

and Washington. The proposed special

rule was published in the Federal

Register on February 17, 1995 (60 FR

9484). The comment period for the draft

EAA and the proposed rule was recently

extended, (61 FR 15452, April 8, 1996)

and is scheduled to end for both

documents on June 3, 1996.

The comment period was extended, in

part, to allow the public the opportunity

to review a proposal by the State of

Washington Forest Practices Board that

would address impacts of forest

practices to the northern spotted owl.

The state has asked the Service to

consider their proposed state rule as a

possible alternative to the current

special rule proposed by the Service.

The Service seeks additional comments

from the interested public, agencies, and

interest groups on the Draft EAA, the

proposed special rule, and on the State

of Washington’s proposed state rule as

a possible alternative to the rule

currently proposed by the Fish and

Wildlife. The purpose of this document

is to provide a summary of

Washington’s proposed rule, and a

comparison of that rule with the

Service’s proposed special rule.

DATES: The comment period for written

comments closes June 3, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning the Draft Environmental

Alternatives Analysis, the proposed rule

and the potential use of the Washington

Forest Practices Board proposed rule as

an additional alternative should be sent

to Mr. Michael J. Spear, Regional

Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue,

Portland, Oregon 97232–4181. The

complete file for this proposed rule will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment during normal business

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Office of Technical Support for

Forest Resources, 333 S.W. 1st Avenue,

4th Floor, Portland, Oregon 97204, (503/

326–6218).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Curt Smitch, Assistant Regional

Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 3704 Griffin Lane S.E.,

Suite 102, Olympia, Washington 98501,

(206/534–9330); or Ron Crete, Office of

Technical Support for Forest Resources,

333 S.W. 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon

97232–4181, (503/326–6218).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Service published its proposed rule

under section 4(d) of the Endangered

Species Act on February 17, 1995 (60 FR

9484), followed by the release of the

draft Environmental Alternatives

Analysis (EAA) which describes and

analyzes the potential environmental

effects of the proposed special rule and

six alternatives for the conservation of

the northern spotted owl on non-Federal

lands in Washington and California.

The State of Washington’s Forest

Practices Board (Board) began work in

1993 to develop a rule to address the

impacts of forest practices on northern

spotted owls in that state. Following the

publication of the Service’s proposed

rule, the Board accelerated work on the

current version of the proposed state

rule. The northern spotted owl is listed

as endangered by the Washington Fish

and Wildlife Commission. The state’s

proposed rule is similar in many ways

to the Service’s proposed 4(d) rule,

although there are some differences. The

state has asked the Service to consider

the state’s proposed rule as an

alternative to the Service’s current

proposed rule.

The rule proposed by the Washington

Forest Practices Board would classify

forest practices in spotted owl habitat as

‘‘Class IV-Special’’. Class IV-Special

designation includes forest practices

within critical wildlife habitats (state) of

species listed as threatened or

endangered under either the Federal

Endangered Species Act or state law,

and requires that certain forest practices

proposed to occur in these habitat areas

be evaluated relative to their potential to

have substantial impacts to the

environment. Such forest practices may

include timber harvesting, road

construction and aerial spraying of

pesticides, and are subject to

environmental review under the State

Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

A review under SEPA involves a

detailed analysis of a proposed action to

determine if it will have a significant

impact on the environment. Should a

finding of significance be made, then an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)