Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules 30207

b. In 186.5250, by adding paragraph

(c) to read as follows:

§ 186.5250 Quizalofop ethyl.

* * * * *

(c) A maximum residue level

regulation is established permitting

residues of quizalofop (2-(4-(6-

chloroquinoxalin-2-yl)oxy)phenoxy)

propanoic acid) and quizalofop ethyl

(ethyl 2-[4-(6-chloroquinoxalin-2-

yl)oxy)phenoxy)-12-propanoate, in or on

the following feed resulting from

application of the herbicide to canola.

Feed Parts per million

canola, meal .............. 1.5

This regulation reflects the maximum

level of residues in canola meal

consistent with the use of quizalofop

ethyl on canola in conformity with

180.441 of this chapter and with the use

of good manufacturing practices.

[FR Doc. 96–15200 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5519–3]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Delete the

Leetown Pesticides Site in Leetown,

Jefferson County, West Virginia, from

the National Priorities List; Request for

Comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region III announces its

intent to delete the Leetown Pesticides

Site (Site) from the National Priorities

List (NPL) and requests public comment

on this proposed action. The NPL

constitutes Appendix B to 40 CFR part

300. Part 300 comprises 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 West Virginia Division of

Environmental Protection have

determined that all appropriate CERCLA

actions have been implemented and that

the Site poses no significant threat to

public health or the environment.

Therefore, further remedial measures

pursuant to CERCLA are not needed.

DATES: Comments concerning the

proposed deletion of the Site from the

NPL may be submitted on or before July

15, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be

submitted to EPA’s Remedial Project

Manager for the Leetown Pesticides Site:

Melissa Whittington (3HW23), U.S. EPA

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107,

(whittington.melissa@epamail.epa.gov)

Comprehensive information on this

Site is available for viewing at the Site

information repositories at the following

locations:

U.S. EPA Region III, 9th Floor Library,

841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania 19107

Old Charles Town Public Library, 200

East Washington Street, Charles

Town, West Virginia 25414

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melissa Whittington, Remedial Project

Manager, at the address above or by

telephone at (215) 566–3235.

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 III announces its intent to

delete the Leetown Pesticides Site,

which is located in Leetown, West

Virginia, from the National Priorities

List (NPL), Appendix B to 40 CFR part

300, the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), and requests comments on this

decision. 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 discussed in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.425(e)(3), a site deleted from the

NPL remains eligible for remedial action

in the unlikely event that conditions at

the site warrant such action in the

future.

EPA will accept comments on the

proposal to delete this Site from the

NPL for thirty calendar 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 the procedures that

EPA is using for this action. Section IV

discusses the Leetown Pesticides Site

and explains how the Site meets the

deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

The NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e)

provides that sites may be deleted from

or recategorized on the NPL where no

further response is appropriate.

Specifically, this section of the NCP

provides that, 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

persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed

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.

The NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e) further

provides that sites may not be deleted

from the NPL until the State in which

the site is located has concurred on the

proposed deletion. All sites deleted

from the NPL are eligible for further

Fund-financed remedial actions should

future conditions warrant such action.

Whenever there is a significant release

from a site deleted from the NPL, the

site shall be restored to the NPL without

application of the Hazard Ranking

System.

Deletion of a 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.

III. Deletion Procedures

The procedures required to ensure

public involvement during a proposal to

delete a site from the NPL are

enumerated at 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4).

Pursuant to that section, EPA has

published this Notice of Intent to Delete,

together with concurrent notices in the

local newspapers in the vicinity of the

Site, to announce the initiation of a 30-

day public comment period. The public

is asked to comment on EPA’s intention

to delete the Site from the NPL. All

documents supporting EPA’s intention

to delete the Site from the NPL are

available for inspection by the public at

the information repositories located at

the addresses listed above.

EPA will accept and evaluate public

comments on this Notice of Intent to

Delete before making a final decision on

the deletion. If EPA receives any

significant comments during the public

comment period, the Agency will

prepare a Responsiveness Summary to

address those comments.

A deletion occurs when the Regional

Administrator places a final deletion

notice in the Federal Register. Once this
30208 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules

has occurred, each subsequent

publication of the NPL will reflect that

the Site has been deleted. Public notices

and copies of the Responsiveness

Summary, if any, will be placed in the

Site information repositories listed

above.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

The following site summary provides

EPA’s rationale for the proposal to

delete the Leetown Pesticides Site from

the NPL:

A. Site Background

The Site is located in Leetown,

Jefferson County, West Virginia, in the

extreme northeastern portion of the

state, approximately 8 miles south of

Martinsburg, West Virginia. The Site

consists of three separate parcels in the

vicinity of the town of Leetown which

were contaminated with pesticides: the

former Pesticide Pile Area, the former

Pesticide Mixing Shed, and the Crimm

Orchard Packing Shed.

The former Pesticide Pile Area is

alleged to have received pesticidecontaminated debris from a fire at a

local chemical company in 1975. The

contamination at the former Pesticide

Pile Area was the residue left after the

removal of approximately 160 cubic

yards of pesticide-contaminated debris

in June of 1983.

The former Pesticide Mixing Shed

was used during the active operation of

the Jefferson Orchard to formulate

pesticides for use at the orchard. The

eastern portion of the Crimm Orchard

Packing Shed was used for the

formulation of pesticides for application

at the former Crimm Orchard and for

storing containers of pesticides, most of

which were open and leaking.

The contaminants of concern at the

Site included DDT and its metabolites,

DDD and DDE, and the alpha, beta,

delta, and gamma isomers of

hexachlorocyclohexane (HCCH).

Gamma HCCH is also known as

Lindane.

B. History and Characterization of Risk

Evidence of hazardous waste activity

was first brought to the attention of EPA

in 1981 by representatives of the

National Fisheries Center in nearby

Kearneysville, West Virginia. Between

1980 and 1983, EPA conducted a

number of investigations which

included sampling of the debris pile in

the former Pesticide Pile Area and

locations in the immediate vicinity of

the Pesticide Pile Area, including

residential wells, the Fisheries Center,

the Grey and Bell Springs, and the

Jefferson County solid waste landfill.

The Site was proposed for inclusion on

the original Superfund NPL in

December of 1982, and officially placed

on the NPL in September of 1983.

EPA conducted sampling for the

Remedial Investigation (RI) between

1984 and 1985. The RI focused on areas

in the vicinity of Leetown where the

surface disposal of pesticides,

agricultural use of pesticides or the

landfilling of pesticides had occurred.

The areas to be investigated were

identified through an aerial

photographic survey conducted by EPA

and information received from local

sources. After evaluating the results of

the RI sampling, EPA narrowed the

areas of concern to the former Pesticide

Pile Area, the former Pesticide Mixing

Shed, and the Crimm Orchard Packing

Shed. The RI determined the extent of

contamination and the risks to human

health and the environment posed by

the contamination in these areas. The RI

was followed by a Feasibility Study

(FS), also conducted by EPA, which

identified cleanup alternatives to

address those risks.

The RI and FS reports were released

to the public for review on March 6,

1986. This marked the beginning of the

public comment period which closed on

March 27, 1986. During the comment

period, EPA recommended Alternative 7

from the FS as EPA’s preferred remedial

alternative. A public meeting to discuss

EPA’s preferred remedial alternative

was held on March 20, 1986. On March

31, 1986, a Record of Decision (ROD)

was issued which identified Alternative

7 as the Selected Remedy. Alternative 7

consisted of the following actions: (1)

Demolition and off-site disposal of the

eastern portion of the Crimm Orchard

Packing Shed and its contents; and (2)

anaerobic biodegradation of the

pesticide-contaminated soils from the

former Pesticide Pile Area, the former

Pesticide Mixing Shed and the soils

from under the Crimm Orchard Packing

Shed. A total estimated volume of 3,600

cubic yards of soil were to be

consolidated and placed in treatment

beds to be constructed on-site.

The demolition and off-site disposal

of the eastern portion of the Crimm

Orchard Packing Shed and its contents

began on February 24, 1988 and was

completed on April 22, 1988. EPA

performed treatability studies for the

bioremediation of the consolidated soils

on two separate occasions. The first

treatability study, which tested the

effectiveness of anaerobic

biodegradation, was performed from

May 1986 to April 1987. This study was

not successful in meeting the cleanup

levels specified in the ROD. EPA

performed treatability studies for two

other biological treatment processes

from April 1989 to January 1990. One

process utilized white rot fungus; the

other process utilized a combination of

aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation.

Again, neither of these processes were

able to successfully treat the soils to

meet the cleanup levels specified in the

ROD.

In 1990, as part of the second phase

of treatability studies, EPA reviewed the

cleanup levels established in the ROD to

determine if these levels continued to be

appropriate to protect human health and

the environment. During this review, it

was discovered that the methodology

used in the 1986 risk assessment was no

longer utilized by EPA in determining

risks to human health. Specifically, the

1986 risk assessment was based on the

maximum human exposure to the

contaminants at the Site, including the

maximum observed concentrations.

However, the Risk Assessment

Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) which

EPA issued in December of 1989, EPA/

540/1–89/002, stated that quantitative

risk assessments should be based on

Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME)

scenarios. Because the 1986 risk

assessment appeared to be overly

conservative compared to a risk

assessment that would result from

utilizing RAGS, EPA recalculated the

risks to human health using the RME

scenarios and determined that the

contaminants of concern at the Site did

not pose an unacceptable risk to human

health or the environment.

On February 6, 1992, as a result of the

revised risk assessment described above,

EPA issued a Proposed Remedial Action

Plan (Proposed Plan) which identified

‘‘No Further Action’’ as EPA’s preferred

remedial alternative for this Site.

Issuance of this Proposed Plan marked

the beginning of the public comment

period. On February 20, 1992, a public

meeting was held at the National

Fisheries Center to answer questions

from community members and facilitate

public input on the Proposed Plan. The

public comment period closed on March

6, 1992. On April 7, 1992, EPA issued

a ROD Amendment which identified No

Further Action as the Selected Remedy

for the Site.

On April 7, 1992, EPA also issued a

Superfund Preliminary Site Closeout

Report. This closeout report indicated

that all remedial action activities

required for protection of human health

and the environment had been

satisfactorily completed. The ROD

Amendment did not provide any

provisions for long-term monitoring of

the Site because the only portion of the

originally selected remedial action

which was completed was off-site
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 116 / Friday, June 14, 1996 / Proposed Rules 30209

disposal. Therefore, no operation and

maintenance activities are required.

Although the remedial action was

completed in April of 1988, the

monitoring wells installed and utilized

during the RI had to be properly

abandoned prior to deletion of the Site

from the NPL. In the spring of 1995, the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Baltimore District was tasked under an

interagency agreement with EPA to

properly abandon all monitoring wells

except those which Jefferson County

chose to retain for use in monitoring the

groundwater in the vicinity of its solid

waste landfill. This work was completed

in June of 1995. On August 24, 1995,

EPA accepted the Corps of Engineers’

report entitled ‘‘Closure Report:

Abandonment of Monitoring Wells,

Leetown Pesticides Superfund Site,

Leetown West Virginia’’ as a final

document.

EPA is required to review remedial

actions every five years if hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants

remain at the site above levels that

allow for unrestricted exposure and

unlimited use. Since neither of these

conditions exists at this Site, further

five-year reviews are not warranted and

will not be conducted.

C. Conclusion

The NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e)(ii)

provides that EPA may delete a site

from the NPL if ‘‘all appropriate Fundfinanced response under CERCLA has

been implemented, and no further

action by responsible parties is

appropriate.’’ EPA, with the

concurrance of the State of West

Virginia, believes that this criterion for

deletion has been met. Therefore, EPA

is proposing deletion of this Site from

the NPL. Documents supporting this

action are available in the Site

information repositories listed

previously in this document.

Dated: June 4, 1996.

Stanley L. Laskowski,

Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA

Region III.

[FR Doc. 96–14911 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket 87–10; Notice 8]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Power-Operated Window,

Partition, and Roof Panel Systems;

Correction

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration; DOT.

ACTION: Correction.

SUMMARY: In Docket 87–10, Notice 6,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

beginning on page 28124 in the issue of

Tuesday, June 4, 1996, make the

following correction:

On page 28124 in the second column,

25th line, change the words ‘‘Notice 6’’

to ‘‘Notice 7.’’

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Paul Atelsek, Office of the Chief

Counsel, NCC–20, telephone (202) 366–

2992.

Issued: June 10, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–15069 Filed 6–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD91

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Rule To Remove

the Plant Echinocereus lloydii (Lloyd’s

Hedgehog Cactus) from the Federal

List of Endangered and Threatened

Plants

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) under the authority of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act),

as amended, proposes to remove the

plant Echinocereus lloydii (Lloyd’s

hedgehog cactus) from the Federal List

of Endangered and Threatened Plants.

Lloyd’s hedgehog cactus was listed as

endangered on October 26, 1979, due to

threats of collection and highway

projects. Recent evidence indicates that

Lloyd’s hedgehog cactus is not a distinct

species but rather a hybrid. Therefore,

Lloyd’s hedgehog cactus does not

qualify for protection under the Act.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by August 13,

1996. Public hearing requests must be

received by July 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning this proposal should be sent

to the Field Supervisor, Ecological

Services Austin Field Office, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet

Road, Suite 200, Hartland Bank

Building, Austin, Texas 78758.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathryn Kennedy or Elizabeth Materna,

(see ADDRESSES section) (telephone

512/490–0057; facsimile 512/490–0974).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Echinocereus lloydii (Lloyd’s

hedgehog cactus), a member of the

cactus family, was first collected by F.E.

Lloyd in 1922 and was named in his

honor by Britton and Rose (1937). The

first plants collected by Mr. Lloyd were

from near Fort Stockton, Pecos County,

Texas (Weniger 1970).

Lloyd’s hedgehog cactus is a

cylindrical cactus with one to several

stems up to about 20 centimeters (cm)

(8 inches (in)) long and 10 cm (4 in) in

diameter. The flowers vary from

lavender to magenta in color, are about

5 cm (2 in) in diameter, and form

mature fruits that are green, tinged with

pink or orange when ripe (Correll and

Johnston 1979, Poole and Riskind 1987).

Lloyd’s hedgehog cactus is known

from Brewster, Culberson, Pecos, and

Presidio Counties in Texas as well as

from Eddy County in New Mexico. It

has also been reported from the state of

Chihuahua in Mexico. Currently fewer

than 15 localities are known from the

U.S., most occurring on private lands.

These cacti occur in the shrub and

brush rangeland of the Chihuahuan

Desert, and are usually found associated

with Agave lecheguilla (lechuguilla),

Prosopis glandulosa (mesquite), Larrea

tridentata (creosote bush), Flourensia

cernua (tarbush), Viguiera stenoloba

(skeleton-leaf goldeneye), and various

cacti (Opuntia sp., Echinocereus sp.,

Echinocactus sp., and Coryphantha sp.)

(Poole and Riskind 1987).

Lloyd’s hedgehog cactus is usually

found on limestone with occasional

weathered metamorphic rock. The cacti

grow on sandy, gravelly, or rocky soils