34180 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 1999 / Proposed Rules original closing date of June 28, 1999 to rule based on this proposal. EPA may actions conducted at the Site to date are July 28, 1999. not provide further opportunity for protective of human health and the ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed comment. Any parties interested in environment, such that further federal rule should be mailed or submitted to: commenting on this action must do so response under CERCLA is not Environmental Protection Agency, Air at this time. warranted. Docket (6102), Attn: Docket No. A–99– DATES: Written comments must be DATES: Comments on the proposed 18, Waterside Mall, 401 M St. SW, received on or before July 26, 1999. deletion from the NPL should be Washington, DC 20460. Comments must ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to submitted on or before July 26, 1999. be submitted in duplicate. Comments Jeff Hunt, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed may be submitted on disk in Sixth Avenue, Mail stop WCM–122, to: Kevin S. Misenheimer, Remedial WordPerfect or Word formats. Seattle, WA 98101. Project Manager, South Site FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Management Branch, Waste James Belke, Chemical Engineer, Hunt, U.S. EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Management Division, U.S. Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Avenue, Mail stop WCM–122, Seattle, Environmental Protection Agency, Prevention Office, Environmental WA 98101, phone number (206) 553– Region IV, 61 Forsyth St., SW, Atlanta, Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW 0256. Georgia 30303. Comprehensive information on this (5104), Washington, DC 20460, (202) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Site is available through the EPA, 260–7314. additional information, please see the Region IV, public docket located at the immediate final rule published in the Dated: June 18, 1999. regional office. The deletion docket is ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Jim Makris, available for viewing, by appointment, Federal Register. Director, Chemical Emergency Preparedness from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday and Prevention Office. Dated: June 9, 1999. through Friday, excluding holidays. [FR Doc. 99–16236 Filed 6–24–99; 8:45 am] Chuck Findley, Requests for appointments or copies of BILLING CODE 6560±50±P Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. the background information from the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. EPA regional office should be directed [FR Doc. 99–16089 Filed 6–24–99; 8:45 am] to Debbie Jourdan, EPA, Region IV, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BILLING CODE 6560±50±P docket office at 61 Forsyth St, SW, AGENCY Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Ms. Jourdan may also be contacted by telephone at 40 CFR Part 272 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (404) 562–8862. [FRL±6364±1] AGENCY The Deletion Docket and background information from the regional public Idaho: Incorporation by Reference of 40 CFR Part 300 docket is also available for viewing at Approved State Hazardous Waste [FRL±6365±6] the Site information repository located Management Program at Florida International University, AGENCY: Environmental Protection National Oil and Hazardous North Campus Library, 3000 NE 145th Agency (EPA). Substances Pollution Contingency St, North Miami, FL 33181–3601. Plan; National Priorities List Update Appointments can be scheduled to ACTION: Proposed rule. review the documents locally by ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the contacting the library at (305) 919–5726. SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to codify Munisport Landfill Superfund Site from FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: in part 272 of Title 40 of the Code of the National Priorities List (NPL); Federal Regulations (CFR) Idaho’s request for comments. Kevin S. Misenheimer, Remedial Project authorized hazardous waste program. Manager, EPA, Region IV, 61 Forsyth St. EPA will incorporate by reference into SUMMARY: EPA, Region IV, announces its SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562– the CFR those provisions of the State intent to delete the Munisport Landfill 8922. statutes and regulations that are Superfund (Site) in North Miami, Dade SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: authorized and federally enforceable. In County, Florida, from the NPL and Table of Contents the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of requests public comment on this action. this Federal Register, the EPA is The NPL constitutes Appendix B, 40 I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria codifying and incorporating by CFR Part 300; the National Oil and III. Deletion Procedures reference the State’s hazardous waste Hazardous Substances Pollution IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion program as an immediate final rule Contingency Plan (NCP) promulgated by without prior proposal because EPA the United States Environmental I. Introduction views this action as noncontroversial Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to EPA, Region IV, announces its intent and anticipates no adverse comments. Section 105 of the Comprehensive to delete the Munisport Landfill The Agency has explained the reasons Environmental Response, Compensation Superfund Site from the NPL (Appendix for this codification and incorporation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as B of the NCP), and requests public by reference in the preamble to the amended. EPA and the Florida comment on this proposed action. EPA immediate final rule. If EPA does not Department of Environmental Protection identifies sites that pose a significant receive adverse written comments, the (FDEP) have determined that all threat to public health, welfare, or the immediate final rule will become appropriate response actions under environment and maintains an effective and the Agency will not take CERCLA have been implemented by the inventory of these sites through the further action on this proposal. If EPA Potentially Responsible Party, the City NPL. Sites on the NPL may be the receives adverse written comments, EPA of North Miami, and that no further subject of remedial actions financed by will withdraw the immediate final rule response actions under CERCLA are the Hazardous Substances Superfund and it will not take effect. EPA will then needed. Moreover, EPA and the FDEP Response Trust Fund (Fund). Pursuant address public comments in a later final have determined that the remedial to 40 CFR 300.66(c) (8), any site deleted

VerDate 18-JUN-99 11:58 Jun 24, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A25JN2.122 pfrm04 PsN: 25JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 1999 / Proposed Rules 34181 from the NPL remains eligible for Fund- • Concurrent with this National debris. Due to the potential for the financed remedial actions if new or Notice of Intent to Delete, a notice has release of hazardous substances, changing conditions warrant such been published in local newspapers and pollutants, or contaminants to the actions. has been distributed to appropriate environment, EPA placed the Site on In view of EPA’s findings from the federal, state, and local officials and the National Priorities List (NPL) in Remedial Investigation (RI) and Baseline other interested parties announcing the 1983 for cleanup under the Risk Assessment, and based on the commencement of a 30-day public Comprehensive Environmental results from the 1996 reassessment of comment period on EPA’s Notice of Response, Compensation, and Liability the Preserve, there is nothing that would Intent to Delete. Act of 1980 (CERCLA). prevent unlimited use and unrestricted • The Region has made all relevant EPA’s thorough investigation of the exposure at the site pursuant to documents available in the Regional site during the late 1980’s led EPA to CERCLA. Therefore, no five-year review Office and local site information the conclusion that, although the Site of the site is needed. EPA believes data repository. did not pose a threat to human health, used to make this determination is Deletion of a site from the NPL does the migration of landfill-leachate to the consistent with, and in some cases not itself, create, alter, or revoke an underlying groundwater and adjacent exceeds, the database used to develop individual’s rights or obligations. The wetland posed a significant threat to the the original Record of Decision (ROD). NPL is designed primarily for environment. This was due to the fact EPA will accept comments concerning information purposes and to assist that the leachate-contaminated the proposed deletion of this site from Agency management. As mentioned in groundwater contained elevated levels the NPL until July 26, 1999. Section II of this document, 40 CFR of un-ionized ammonia which is highly Section II of this document explains 300.425(e)(3) provides that deletion of a toxic to aquatic organisms. Although the criteria for deleting sites from the site from the NPL does not preclude other chemicals were detected in the NPL. Section III discusses the eligibility for future Fund-financed leachate, concentrations of these procedures EPA is using for this action. response actions nor does it preclude chemicals were below levels that would Section IV discusses the Munisport future State action pursuant to State present a threat to the environment. In Landfill Site and explains how the site law. an effort to abate the threat posed by the meets the deletion criteria. The comments received on EPA’s ammonia-contaminated leachate, EPA Notice of Intent to Delete during the issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for II. NPL Deletion Criteria notice and comment period will be the Munisport Landfill Superfund Site The NCP establishes the criteria that evaluated by EPA before making the in July 1990. The ROD provided for the the Agency uses to delete sites from the final decision to delete. The Region will interception of leachate-contaminated NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR prepare a Responsiveness Summary, if groundwater through a hydraulic barrier 300.425(e), releases may be deleted from necessary, to address any comments prior to its discharge to the adjacent the NPL where no further response is received during the public comment wetlands. The remedy also provided for appropriate. In making this period. the tidal restoration of a portion of determination, EPA shall consider, in A deletion occurs when the EPA wetlands that are a part of the Biscayne consultation with the State, whether any Regional Administrator publishes a final Bay Aquatic Preserve (i.e., State of the following criteria are met: document in the Federal Register. Mangrove Preserve) and a portion of • Responsible or other parties have Generally, the NPL will reflect deletions wetlands that were hydrologically implemented all appropriate actions in the final update following this Notice altered by the former construction of a required; or of Intent. Public notices and copies of dike during the landfill operations (i.e., • All appropriate Fund-financed the Responsiveness Summary will be altered wetlands). The City of North responses under CERCLA have been made available to local residents by Miami subsequently entered into a implemented, and no further cleanup by Region IV. Consent Decree with the United States of America in 1991 to perform the responsible parties is appropriate, or IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion • The remedial investigation has cleanup prescribed in the ROD. The shown that the release poses no The following site summary provides Superfund Site was defined in the ROD significant threat to public health, the Agency’s rationale for the proposal as the release of hazardous substances welfare, or the environment, and to delete this site from the NPL. from the landfill into the Mangrove therefore, the taking of additional The Munisport Landfill is the location Preserve and that portion of the landfill remedial measures is not appropriate. of a former municipal landfill that needed to implement the CERCLA operated from 1974 to 1981. The landfill remedy. III. Deletion Procedures resulted from the filling of low-lying Through the mid-1990s, the City EPA, Region IV, will accept and wetland areas with construction debris completed the tidal restoration of the evaluate public comments before and solid waste in an effort to raise the State Mangrove Preserve, construction making a final decision to delete this elevation of the land for the of a service road, and installation of the Site from the NPL. Comments from the construction of a cultural and trade wells for the hydraulic barrier. Removal local community may be the most center known as Interama. Failure of the of two 40-foot wide sections of the pertinent to the deletion decision. The Interama project led to subsequent causeway and 60-inch culverts following procedures were used for the municipal development efforts by originally installed in the late-1960’s intended deletion of this Site: Munisport, Inc. The United States was completed in 1995, thus restoring • All appropriate response under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the tidal flow from Biscayne Bay with CERCLA has been implemented and no first became involved with this project the State Mangrove Preserve. further action by EPA is appropriate. in the late 1970’s when it opposed the Monitoring of the surface water quality • EPA, Region IV, has recommended Army Corps of Engineers’ plans for a in Biscayne Bay and the Preserve was deletion and has prepared the relevant modification of the developer’s dredge conducted both before and after the documents. and fill permit to allow for the use of removal of the two sections of the • The State has concurred with the solid waste as fill material, in addition causeway. Results of the water sampling proposed deletion decision. to the already permitted construction conducted as part of the surface water

VerDate 18-JUN-99 11:58 Jun 24, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A25JN2.002 pfrm04 PsN: 25JNP1 34182 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 1999 / Proposed Rules monitoring indicated that the tidal may have been masked by summer several deviations from the original restoration of the Mangrove Preserve rainfall, EPA resampled the Preserve $50,000 grant, bringing the total funding had a greater affect on the mitigation of locations on March 6, 1997, during an for the TAG to $150,000. the toxicity of the landfill leachate to extended dry period. The samples were In addition to the coordination with aquatic organisms in the preserve than analyzed for ammonia and were the MDC, EPA has also worked with originally anticipated. consistent with the data collected in representatives of local groups such as Reassessment of water quality and August 1996. the Friends of the Oleta River, Keystone toxicity in the Mangrove Preserve EPA believes that results from the Point Homeowners Association, showed that there has been a significant August 1996 and March 1997 studies Highland Village Homeowners reduction in the ammonia confirm that indeed there has been a Association, Florida and Tropical contamination and toxicity formerly significant reduction in the ammonia Audubon Societies, and Concerned documented by EPA in the Water levels and toxicity originally Citizens for the Public Use of Quality and Toxic Assessment Study, documented in the 1989 study, such Munisport. EPA has also held numerous Mangrove Preserve, 1989, report. The that no further action under Superfund public and technical meetings and scope of the reassessment incorporated is warranted. A copy of the Water issued numerous fact sheets to keep the critical elements of the 1989 study and Quality and Toxicity Reassessment community apprized of the progress and was refined based on information Study, Mangrove Preserve, Munisport to solicit input during the design and collected during the remedial design Landfill, April 1997, report, which construction process. studies and treatability studies. Most provides a detailed discussion of the The community has also been importantly, EPA concluded that these results, is available for review in the involved in this project through the studies established the cause of the Deletion Docket for this site. Consent Decree entered by the United toxicity documented in the 1989 study. As a result of this determination, a no States District Court in 1992. Although Concerns had been expressed by EPA, further action amendment to the ROD the only parties to the Consent Decree other agencies, and members of the under CERCLA was signed September 5, are the United States of America and the community that not all of the toxicity 1997. Therefore, cleanup of the site City of North Miami, the District Court documented in 1989 may have been the under CERCLA is now complete. has allowed interested non-parties in result of elevated levels of ammonia and Issuance of the ROD Amendment serves the community to file information and that some of the toxicity may be as certification of completion of all express concerns with regard to the associated with elevated levels of remedial activities at the Munisport implementation of the remedy set forth metals, organic compounds, or other Landfill Site, as well as, a final Site in the ROD. Close-Out Report. No institutional toxicants. However, EPA has concluded Applicable Deletion Criteria that data collected during the design controls, long-term groundwater and treatability study show that the monitoring, or Five-Year Reviews, are One of the three criteria for site toxicity documented in the 1989 studies required under CERCLA, because no deletion, 40 CFR 300.425(e)(l)(ii), was the result of elevated levels of hazardous substances remain at the Site specifies that EPA may delete a site ammonia, potentially compounded by as defined in the ROD that would result from the NPL if ‘‘all appropriate Fund- low levels of dissolved oxygen in the in unlimited use and restricted Financed Response under CERCLA has water. exposures. been implemented, and no further The 1996 reassessment included response action by responsible parties is Community Involvement screening of 12 sampling locations, appropriate’’. EPA, with the which were monitored in the 1989 The Munisport Landfill Superfund concurrence of FDEP, believes that this study, for the presence of ammonia and project has involved extensive criterion for deletion has been met and other water quality parameters. Four community participation dating back to the site is protective of human health samples were collected from the the early 1980’s. Over the years various and the environment. Subsequently, Preserve that represented a range of high community-based organizations such as EPA is proposing the deletion of this to low ammonia concentrations. homeowner associations and activist site from the NPL. Documents Samples were also collected from the groups, as well as, local chapters of supporting this action are available for confluence of the east and west national environmental organizations review in the docket. causeway breaches in Biscayne Bay and have commented on various aspects of State Concurrence three reference points in Biscayne Bay. the project. Sections 5.0 and 3.0 of the Samples were collected from these ROD and ROD Amendment, The Florida Department of stations during high and low tides. The respectively, describe the extensive Environmental Protection concurs with samples were analyzed for ammonia, community involvement that has the proposed deletion of the Munisport organic compounds, metals, pesticides, occurred over the years. Landfill Superfund Site from the NPL. and polychlorinated biphenyls. Toxicity After the issuance of the ROD, EPA Although EPA issued an amendment to tests were also conducted using a continued to involve the community in the ROD in September 1997 that coastal minnow, Menidia beryllina, and the remedial process. The community’s provided for no further action under a single cell species of algae, main group is the Munisport Dump CERCLA, proper closure of the landfill Minutocellus polymorphus. Changes in Coalition (MDC), the recipient of a and response to groundwater the hydrology of the Mangrove Preserve Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) from contamination is warranted in were also evaluated. Results from the EPA. Through the MDC, the community accordance with State and local 1996 reassessment confirmed that has had an opportunity to comment on regulations. EPA continues to encourage implementation of the Mangrove documents required by the National the State and County in this effort. Preserve tidal restoration component of Contingency Plan (NCP), and other Reports that contain extensive Site the remedy substantially reduced the documents relating to the design and characterization information are ammonia concentrations and toxicity construction of components of the available for review, along with the ROD formerly documented in the surface remedy set forth in the ROD. In an effort and ROD Amendment, in the waters of the Preserve. Due to concerns to encourage community participation Administrative Record for this Site and that the ammonia levels and toxicity throughout the process, EPA has issued are located with the deletion docket.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 11:58 Jun 24, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A25JN2.003 pfrm04 PsN: 25JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 1999 / Proposed Rules 34183

Dated: May 26, 1999. common carrier service, a vessel on the high OSRA, which continues to differentiate John H. Hankinson, Jr., seas or the Great Lakes between a port in the between vessel-operating and non- Regional Administrator, Region IV. United States and a port in a foreign country, vessel-operating lines with regard to except that the term does not include a [FR Doc. 99–15976 Filed 6–24–99; 8:45 am] service contracting and other areas. common carrier engaged in ocean At first glance, it is difficult to see the BILLING CODE 6560±50±P transportation by ferry boat, ocean tramp, or chemical parcel-tanker. ambiguity in the phrase ‘‘vessel- operating.’’ However, the Commission’s The Commission received comments FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION staff has encountered a number of on this particular aspect of the proposed complex situations regarding where and rule from Croatia Line and the Council 46 CFR Parts 515, 520, 530 and 535 when vessels are operated, and what of European & Japanese National types of vessels are involved. In this [Docket No. 99±10] Shipowners Association (‘‘CENSA’’). regard, various bureaus have taken the While generally supporting the position that an ‘‘ocean common Ocean Common Carriers Subject to the Commission’s proposed definition, carrier’’ is a common carrier that, in Shipping Act of 1984 CENSA suggested that it be further providing a common carrier service, AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. clarified to include a carrier that operates a vessel calling at a U.S. port. provides part of a vessel service in a ACTION: Proposed rule. Moreover, if a carrier is an ocean U.S. trade. In addition, Croatia Line common carrier in one U.S. trade, it has SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime claimed that the Commission failed to been reasoned, it is an ocean common Commission proposes to amend its disclose the facts necessitating such a carrier for all U.S. trades. For example, regulations implementing the Shipping change, and failed to discuss the effects if a carrier operates vessels from the Act of 1984 to clarify the definition of of the changes on regulated parties. U.S. East Coast to northern Europe, it ‘‘ocean common carrier’’ to reflect the Croatia Line also argued that the has the legal ‘‘status’’ of ocean common Commission’s current interpretation of proposed definition would adversely carrier to enter into space charter the term. As a result, only ocean affect it, since it is party to two space agreements for any U.S.-foreign trade. common carriers that operate vessels in charter agreements and does not operate The proposed definition codifies this at least one United States trade will be vessels making direct calls at U.S. ports. approach. It would continue the subject to these rules. It further argued that the proposal was practice of determining status on a DATES: Comments due August 24, 1999. contrary to the clear language of the multi-trade basis (i.e., an ocean common 1984 Act and well-established ADDRESSES: Send comments (original carrier in one U.S. trade has that status and fifteen copies) to: Bryant L. precedent. Croatia Line suggested that in all U.S. trades). Any interpretation of VanBrakle, Secretary, Federal Maritime changes not required by OSRA should the statute requiring status Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, not be subject to such a short comment determinations to be made on a trade- NW., Room 1046, Washington, DC period. by-trade basis would be In light of these comments, and the 20573, (202) 523–5725. administratively impractical and might absence of additional comments from FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: prompt less than efficient redeployment other potentially affected parties, the of vessels in the U.S. trades solely to Thomas Panebianco, General Counsel, Commission decided to provide an Federal Maritime Commission, 800 meet regulatory requirements. additional opportunity to comment, 64 The proposed definition would also North Capitol Street, NW., Room 1018, FR 11236, March 8, 1999. Accordingly, Washington, DC 20573, (202) 523–5740. clarify the issue of whether companies the Commission is initiating this that operate vessels only outside the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In one of rulemaking proceeding to further U.S.—i.e., they have no vessel its several rulemaking proceedings to consider the definition of ‘‘ocean operations to U.S. ports—can be deemed implement the Ocean Shipping Reform common carrier.’’ In addition, because ‘‘ocean common carriers.’’ It appears Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105–258, 112 Stat. the definition of ocean common carrier from the legislative intent of the 1984 1902 (‘‘OSRA’’), the Federal Maritime appears not only in the agreement rules Act that Congress viewed vessel Commission (‘‘FMC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) but also in the rules governing ocean operators as those whose vessels call at proposed to amend its regulations transportation intermediaries (part 515), U.S. ports and classified all other governing agreements among ocean tariffs (part 520), and service contracts common carriers in U.S. commerce as common carriers and marine terminal (part 530), the Commission is proposing non-vessel-operating common carriers. operators. Docket No. 98–26, Ocean to adopt a definition that is consistent For example, in its report on the 1984 Common Carrier and Marine Terminal for all rules. Act, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Operator Agreements Subject to the As explained in the preamble to the Transportation Committee observed: Shipping Act of 1984, 64 FR 11236, proposed rule in Docket No. 98–26, the March 8, 1999. One of the proposed amended definition of ‘‘ocean common The Committee strongly believes that it is in our national interest to permit cooperation changes was a new definition of ‘‘ocean carrier’’ is proposed to resolve common carrier’’ to address perceived among carriers serving our foreign trades to uncertainty generated by the 1984 Act’s permit efficient and reliable service. * ** deficiencies in the definition of that definition, which is simply ‘‘a vessel- Our carriers need; a stable, predictable, and term contained in section 3(16) of the operating common carrier.’’ At issue is profitable trade with a rate of return that Shipping Act of 1984 (‘‘1984 Act’’), 46 how to distinguish between ocean warrants reinvestment and a commitment to U.S.C. app. § 1702(16), (‘‘a vessel- common carriers and NVOCCs. The serve the trade; greater security in investment operating common carrier’’), and to distinction, which was first codified in * * *. clarify the dividing line between ocean 1984, has significant implications, S. Rep. No. 3, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 9 common carriers and non-vessel- inasmuch as the 1984 Act affords ocean (1983). We do not believe that Congress operating common carriers carriers, but not NVOCCs, antitrust intended to provide special privileges or (‘‘NVOCCs’’). The proposed rule sated immunity and other rights and protections to carriers that have not that: responsibilities, including the ability to made the financial commitment to Ocean common carrier means a common offer service contracts. The need for providing vessel service to the United carrier that operates, for all or part of its clarity in this area is continued by States.

VerDate 18-JUN-99 11:58 Jun 24, 1999 Jkt 183247 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\A25JN2.004 pfrm04 PsN: 25JNP1