former main base landfill in the south-central portion of the MMR, as
shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates
(NAD27) are: 855913, 246894; 856532, 246671; 856441, 246447; 855816,
246677; and 855913, 246894. The area FS-17 proposed for partial
deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates.
    FS-17 was a motor pool and vehicle maintenance facility which
operated from World War II to 1946.
Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities
    FS-17 was investigated in several phases from 1993 through 1998
through investigations and post-excavation sampling events. Surface and
subsurface soil samples and groundwater samples from monitoring wells
were collected based on the site's history. Data collected during the
various investigative and removal activities indicated that minimal to
no contamination for surface and subsurface soil, and groundwater, and
that the response actions were complete.
    No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the
form of non-CERCLA removal actions were conducted and the RI concluded
that there were no risks to human health and the environment.
Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings
    Due to the response actions and the remedial investigation which
concluded that there were no site risks, a No Further Action Record of
Decision was finalized in December 1999. No further risks are present
at FS-17 and no institutional controls are present.
Response Actions and Cleanup Standards
    In 1994, two underground storage tanks and a fuel pump island were
removed in a non-CERCLA action. In 1996, a French drain, leaching well,
dry well, vehicle maintenance bays and foundations for two buildings
were removed in a CERLCA removal action as part of a basewide drainage
structural removal program.
Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review
    No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for
this site.
Fuel Spill-18 (FS-18)
Site Location and History
    Fuel Spill-18 (FS-18) is located in the south central section of
the MMR, as shown in Figure 4, within the footprint of the CS-10
groundwater plume. FS-18 coordinates in Easting and Northing
coordinates (NAD27) are: 857962, 244410; 859015, 243956; 859046,
243818; 858901, 243531; 858764, 243519; 858706, 243549; 858577, 243379;
858373, 243484; 858511, 243672; 857676, 244076; and 857962, 244410. The
area FS-18 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and
structures within these coordinates.
    FS-18 is a 14-acre site of a former motor pool and fuel transfer
station. Four underground storage tanks were installed in 1941, two of
which contained diesel fuel and the other two contained motor vehicle
gasoline. Three

motor pool vehicle maintenance buildings were associated with FS-18.
Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities
    Investigations were conducted in 1993 and 1995. The Phase I site
investigation activities included installation and sampling of three
monitoring wells and 45 soil gas samples. A total of six surface soil
and three subsurface soil samples and three rounds of groundwater
samples were collected in all investigation phases.
    The soil investigation and sampling focused on three areas; the
drainage course south of the study area and east of South Gaffney
Street, a topographic depression west of the study area, and the area
around the two former fuel islands and leaching wells.
    The site investigation and risk evaluation for human health and
ecological risk, and risk to groundwater from leaching of soil
contaminants concluded that a removal action was needed to address
petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in the topographical depression and
the drainage swale.
    An engineering evaluation/cost analysis was conducted to evaluate
removal action alternatives.
Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings
    The Site Inspection Report concluded that Total Petroleum
Hydrocarbons posed a risk to groundwater from the leaching of
contaminants from soil. A multi-site Action Memorandum with FS-18 as
one of the sites was issued in 1999.
Response Actions and Cleanup Standards
    In 1985, two of the four underground storage tanks were removed in
a non-CERCLA action. In 1990, the buildings at FS-18 were demolished.
In August 1994, the other two underground storage tanks were removed in
a non-CERCLA action. In 1996 as part of a basewide drainage structure
removal program, a total on nine drainage structures and approximately
430 cubic yards of contaminated soil were removed in a CERCLA removal
action. Removal design sampling activities were conducted in 2001 and
did not identify any contamination above cleanup levels, so a removal
action was not conducted. The removal action cleanup standards for
petroleum hydrocarbons (impact to groundwater) were: 100 mg/kg for
C5-C8; 1,000 mg/kg for C9-
C12; 1,000 mg/kg for C13-C18; 2,500
mg/kg for C19-C36 for Aliphatic hydrocarbons; 100
mg/kg for C9-C10; and 200 mg/kg for
C11-C22 for Aromatic hydrocarbons. A removal
action report which documented the additional soil sampling activities
and no further action at FS-18 was issued in April 2004.
Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review
    No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for
this site.
Fuel Spill-19 (FS-19)
Site Location and History
    FS-19 was a two-acre site which is located in the south-central
portion of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting
and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 856829, 241507; 856934, 241444;
856734, 241142; 856624, 241206; and 856829, 241507. The area FS-19
proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these
coordinates.
    FS-19 is a one-acre former motor gas fuel storage and transfer
point which began operations in 1941 when six 10,000-gallon underground
storage tanks were installed and used to store motor gas until 1958.
Between the years 1958 to 1965, the six underground storage tanks were
used to store hazardous wastes.
Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities
    FS-19 was investigated in several phases from 1989 through 1998
through investigations and post-excavation sampling events. Surface and
subsurface soil samples and groundwater samples from monitoring wells
were collected based on the site's history. Data collected during the
various investigative and removal activities indicated that minimal to
no contamination for surface and subsurface soil, and groundwater, and
that the response actions were complete.
    No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the
form of non-CERCLA removal actions were conducted and the RI concluded
that there were no risks to human health and the environment.
Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings
    Due to the response actions and the remedial investigation which
concluded that there were no site risks, a No Further Action Record of
Decision was finalized in December 1999. No further risks are present
at FS-19 and no institutional controls are present.
Response Actions and Cleanup Standards
    In 1989, six underground storage tanks were removed in a non-CERCLA
action. In 1996, a drainage structure and contaminated soil were
removed in a CERLCA removal action as part of a basewide drainage
structural removal program.
Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review
    No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for
this site.
Fuel Spill-20 (FS-20)
Site Location and History
    FS-20, former Current Product Tank (CPT) No. 88, is located in the
Cantonment Area of the MMR, as shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in
Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 862957, 241292; 863022,
241435; 863119, 241393; 863052, 241251; and 862957, 241292. The area
FS-20 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and
structures within these coordinates.
    FS-20 is a half-acre area which featured former Current Product
Tank No. 88 which was a 12,500 gallon underground storage tank that was
removed in 1996.
Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities
    A Phase I Records Search was completed in December 1986. In 1987,
the site investigation activities included one test pit and
installation of one groundwater monitoring well downgradient of the
tank. Analytical results indicated no contamination of soil or
groundwater. Investigation concluded that there was no significant
potential for contamination and that the site did not pose a risk.
    No feasibility study was conducted since the site investigation
concluded that the site did not impact the soil and groundwater.
Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings
    A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in July 1991.
No risks are present at FS-20 and no institutional controls are
present.
Response Actions and Cleanup Standards
    In 1996, the 12,500 gallon underground storage tank was removed in
a non-CERCLA action.

Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review
    No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for
this site.
Fuel Spill-23 (FS-23)
Site Location and History
    FS-23, South Truck Road Fuel Spill, is located in the southern
portion of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting
and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 861731, 237487; 861881, 237420;
861807, 237237; 861652, 237308; and 861731, 237121. The area FS-23
proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these
coordinates.
    FS-23 is a less than one-acre area in which a fuel spill occurred
in 1965 when JP-4 leaked onto the ground from a fuel line clean-out
valve.
Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities
    Following a preliminary assessment in 1986, FS-23 was investigated
and characterized during two site inspections in 1988 and 1989, and a
groundwater sampling program in 1999.
    Investigation activities included: a soil gas survey; excavation of
test pits; installation of test boring and monitoring wells; and soil
and groundwater sampling and analysis.
    Soil and groundwater sampling detected minimal contamination.
Results of the human health and ecological risk assessments suggest
that unacceptable levels of risk are not anticipated.
    No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the
form of non-CERCLA removal actions were conducted and the
investigations concluded that the site did not pose a risk to human
health or the environment.
Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings
    The risk assessment concluded no significant risk to human health
and environment. A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in
June 2000. No further risks are present at FS-23 and no institutional
controls are present.
Response Actions and Cleanup Standards
    During the Fuel System Upgrade Program in 1993, two underground 10-
inch fuel lines were removed in a non-CERCLA action.
Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review
    No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for
this site.
Fuel Spill-25 (FS-25)
Site Location and History
    FS-25 is located on the southeast portion of the MMR as shown in
Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27)
are: 866837, 237121; 867004, 237329; 867148, 237217; 866979, 237006;
and 866837, 237121. The area FS-25 proposed for partial deletion
includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates.
    FS-25 covers approximately one-acre and is located immediately
northeast of Building 167. In 1989, petroleum-stained soil was
discovered during the construction of a parking lot and 2,000 cubic
yards was excavated. The history and cause of the contamination was
unknown although the area was reported to have been used for heavy
equipment maintenance which may have had spills and releases.
Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities
    Investigation of the petroleum-stained soil began with excavation
of test pits, completion of soil borings, and soil sampling of the
investigation areas in December 1989. With the exception of a small
portion of the soil from the excavation, soil data indicated that most
of typical fuel compounds have degraded and there was no subsurface
soil contamination requiring action.
    No feasibility study was developed since investigation activities
did not identify any contamination in the subsurface.
Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings
    Based on sampling results and low-temperature thermal treatment of
non-backfilled soil, a No Further Action Decision Document was
finalized in June 1997. No further risks are present at FS-25 and no
institutional controls are present.
Response Actions and Cleanup Standards
    In November 1989, approximately 2,000 cubic yards of contaminated
soil was removed in a non-CERCLA action and stockpiled on a taxiway of
the airfield. In 1996, the stockpiled soil was sampled to determine
remaining petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations and to evaluate
disposal/reuse options. A majority of this soil was used as backfill,
but 88 cubic yards was treated in a low-temperature thermal desorption
system which was on-site treating contaminated soil from other
projects. A cleanup standard of 1,235 parts per million for total
petroleum hydrocarbons was selected.
Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review
    No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for
this site.
Fuel Spill-26 (U.S. Coast Guard) (FS-26 (CG))
Site Location and History
    FS-26 (CG) is located at the intersection of two unnamed paved
roads at the southwesterly end of Building 3444 which is a U.S. Coast
Guard warehouse, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and
Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 856353, 242055; 856407, 242129;
856499, 242071; 856449, 241997; and 856353, 242055. The area FS-26 (CG)
proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these
coordinates.
    FS-26 (CG) is a less than one-acre former location of a 3,000-
gallon underground storage tank which contained No. 2 heating oil and
was installed in the early 1950s near Building 3444.
Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities
    A soil boring was advanced in the backfilled UST excavation area to
assess subsurface contamination. No contamination was detected in these
samples. Groundwater samples from a nearby monitoring well also did not
detect any site contamination.
    No feasibility study was developed since investigation activities
did not identify any contamination which remained from the UST removal.
Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings
    A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in July 1997.
No further risks are present at FS-26 (CG) and no institutional
controls are present.
Response Actions and Cleanup Standards
    In 1990, a 3,000 gallon underground storage tank and 70 cubic yards
of contaminated soil was removed under non-CERCLA authority (i.e., no
Action Memorandum was issued). No structures are present at FS-26 (CG).

Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review
    No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for
this site.
Landfill-4 (LF-4)
Site Location and History
    LF-4 is located outside the eastern border of the MMR, as shown in
Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27)
are: 867744, 235225; 867650, 234793; 867382, 234858; 867302, 234920;
867295, 235037; 867351, 235121; 867416, 235321; 867491, 235357; and
867744, 235225. The area LF-4 proposed for partial deletion includes
all surface soils within these coordinates.
    LF-4 is a four-acre, former borrow pit which became an illegal
dumping ground because it was located outside the border of the MMR.
Although the property is currently owned by the town of Mashpee, it is
under the control of the Air Force which obtained a limited easement to
this property in 1960 to ensure safe operation at the airfield and to
create a clear safety zone for the Otis Air National Guard Base
Ammunition Storage Area.
Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities
    Following the non-CERCLA removal action, a site investigation was
conducted in 1999. The investigation activities included collection and
analysis of surface and subsurface soil samples, review of existing
groundwater data, collection of two groundwater samples, and a risk
evaluation. All sampling results were below action levels.
    The sampling results and an evaluation of potential risks to human
health and environment demonstrated that the site did not pose a threat
or require no action.
    No feasibility study was developed since investigation activities
after the removal action did not identify any contamination which could
have been caused by the former landfill.
Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings
    A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in November
2000. No further risks are present at LF-4 and no institutional
controls are present.
Response Actions and Cleanup Standards
    In June 1998, the town and the Massachusetts Army National Guard
conducted non-CERCLA removal actions under a DEP Administrative Consent
Order. Approximately 950 cubic yards of solid waste were removed. No
release of any hazardous substances was observed. In the removal, a 55-
gallon drum containing five gallons of petroleum product was discovered
and removed.
Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review
    No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for
this site.
Storm Drain-2/Fuel Spill-6/Fuel Spill-8 (SD-2/FS-6/FS-8)
Site Location and History
    SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 is located on the southern boundary of the MMR, as
shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates
(NAD27) are: 865636, 236155; 865932, 236045; 865653, 235179; 865140,
234242; 864849, 233949; 864760, 234141; 864949, 234459; 865265, 235096;
and 865636, 236155. The area SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 proposed for partial
deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates.
    SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 is a 15.6-acre area consisting of a storm drainage
ditch which extends south-southwest from the southern boundary of the
MMR towards Ashumet Pond. SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 received storm water discharge
from the MMR runway/aircraft maintenance ramp storm sewer system from
1950 through 2001. FS-6 and FS-8 are related to SD-2 because they were
two aviation gasoline fuel spills which occurred on the aircraft
maintenance ramp and were reportedly washed directly to the storm sewer
eventually making its way into the SD-2 ditch. There are reports of
other releases into SD-2 of fuel and solvents which were used in the
various maintenance shops. In 1968, an oil-water separator was
constructed at the storm sewer outfall to intercept fuels from the
aircraft maintenance ramp.
Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities
    An initial investigation was conducted in 1988 with installation of
two monitoring wells and collection of six sediment samples from the
storm drainage ditch. In 1989, a remedial investigation expanded the
investigation with additional groundwater and sediment samples. In
1993, a supplemental remedial investigation was conducted and included
the collection of additional sediment samples.
    The risk assessment in the remedial investigation identified an
ecological risk due to inorganics, specifically chromium, lead, and
zinc.
    A feasibility study was developed and evaluated soil alternatives
which were: no action; excavation and asphalt batching; and excavation
and off-site treatment and disposal.
Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings
    A multi-site Record of Decision which included SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 was
finalized in September 1998 and selected excavation and asphalt
batching as the remedy. Remedial action was required to address
ecological risks. An Explanation of Significant Differences was issued
in January 2003 and contained adjustments to the cleanup levels and
allowed off-site disposal instead of asphalt batching which was deemed
too expensive during remedial design and action.
Response Actions and Cleanup Standards
    In 1996, approximately 480 cubic yards of contaminated soil from an
adjacent site called the Petroleum Fuel Storage Area and approximately
120 cubic yards of fuel contaminated soil from SD-2 were removed in a
non-CERCLA action. In 2002, approximately 350 cubic yards of
contaminated soil was removed and transported off-site for disposal
implementing the selected remedy in the ROD. The contaminants of
concern and their cleanup levels were: chromium--19 mg/kg (ecological
risk); lead--99 mg/kg (ecological risk); zinc--68 mg/kg (ecological
risk). A remedial action report for SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 was issued in June
2004 and documents the completion of the selected remedy.
Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review
    No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for
this site.
Storm Drain-3/Fire Training Area-3/Coal Yard-4 (SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4)
Site Location and History
    SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4, is located in the southeastern corner of the MMR,
as shown in Figure 5. SD-3 is composed of two parcels with the
following Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 867639, 236299;
867578, 236374; 867517, 236575; 867552, 236584; 867608, 236407; 867671,
236361; 867700, 236416; 867685, 236625; 867738, 236636; 867766, 236477;
867732, 236411; 867696, 236258; 867668, 236157; 867628, 236156; and

867639, 236299 for parcel A; and 868617, 236384; 868714, 236345;
868959, 236314; 868916, 236228; 868664, 236279; 868568, 236314; and
868617, 236384 for parcel B. FTA-3 is composed of the following Easting
and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 867475, 235823; 867478, 235658;
867369, 235537; 867188, 235535; 867077, 235645; 867079, 235808; 867184,
235927; 867369, 235930; and 867475, 235823. CY-4 is composed of the
following Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27): 866878, 236000;
867230, 236439; 867144, 236510; 867471, 236945; 867708, 237077; 867754,
236551; 867693, 236192; 867545, 235935; 867611, 235687; 867063, 235857;
and 866878, 236000. The area SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4 proposed for partial
deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates.
    SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4 is a 19-acre area located in a moderately
industrialized area on the eastern side of the runways. The SD-3
stormwater drainage ditch receives runoff from several areas which
include the eastern edge of the aircraft maintenance ramp, a former
Central Heating Plant, and associated stockpiles of coal and surficial
coal ash. FTA-3 was used for fire training activities between 1956 and
1958 and then as a disposal area of construction debris and coal ash
after construction of the Central Heating Plant. CY-4 is located 400
feet south of the Central Heating Plant and had coal stockpiled
directly on the ground from 1955 to 1978. Coal ash was disposed on the
ground surface south of the coal pile. Surficial drainage from the
stockpile and ash disposal area flowed toward and into SD-3.
Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities
    Initial investigation occurred in 1987 which was followed-up with a
remedial investigation that was conducted over three phases from 1989,
1990, and 1993. The remedial investigation identified risk which was
due to phenanthrene, chrysene, arsenic, chromium, lead, vanadium, and
zinc.
    An initial investigation was conducted in 1988 with installation of
two monitoring wells and collection of six sediment samples from the
storm drainage ditch. In 1989, a remedial investigation expanded the
investigation with additional groundwater and sediment samples. In
1993, a supplemental remedial investigation was conducted and included
the collection of additional sediment samples.
    The risk assessment in the remedial investigation identified an
ecological risk due to inorganics, specifically chromium, lead, and
zinc.
    A feasibility study was developed and evaluated soil alternatives
which were: no action; excavation and asphalt batching; and excavation
and off-site treatment and disposal.
Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings
    A multi-site Record of Decision which included SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4 was
finalized in September 1998 and selected excavation and asphalt
batching as the remedy. Remedial action was required to address
ecological risks. An Explanation of Significant Differences was issued
in January 2003 and contained adjustments to the cleanup levels and
allowed off-site disposal instead of asphalt batching which was deemed
too expensive during remedial design and action.
Response Actions and Cleanup Standards
    From February to April 1994, approximately 42,000 cubic yards of
coal, coal ash, and contaminated soil from FTA-3 and CY-4 were
excavated and used as subgrade fill for the landfill capping of
Landfill No. 1, another site on MMR. In 2001, approximately 1,065 cubic
yards of contaminated soil was excavated and transported off-site for
disposal implementing the selected remedy in the ROD. A remedial action
report for SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4 was finalized in August 2004 and documents
the completion of the remedy. The contaminants of concern and their
cleanup levels were: chromium--19 mg/kg (ecological risk); lead--99 mg/
kg (ecological risk); zinc--68 mg/kg (ecological risk).
Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review
    No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for
this site.

B. Community Involvement

    Community input has been sought by the Air Force throughout the MMR
investigation and cleanup process. Community relations activities that
have occurred include: monthly meetings of the Plume Cleanup Team which
is a group composed of agency representatives and citizens who live
near MMR; 30-day public comment periods for decision documents; public
meetings/hearings for the issuance of Proposed Plans, and information
meetings for neighborhoods that are affected by off-site plume
migration and/or off-site construction; issuance of new releases, fact
sheets, and annual reports; and operation and maintenance of a Web site
specifically for MMR (http://www.mmr.org).

    A copy of the Deletion Docket can be reviewed several ways.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA's New England

Region Superfund Records Center, One Congress Street, Suite 1100,
Boston, MA 02114 and the Information Repositories at AFCEE/IRP Office
at Building 322 on MMR, by appointment only Monday through Friday 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.,<PHONE_NUMBER> ext 1, and the Information Repositories
in the Towns of Bourne, Falmouth, Sandwich, and Mashpee. The Deletion
Docket includes this document, supporting appendices containing tables
and figures, No Further Action Decision Documents, Records of Decision,
Removal Action Reports, Remedial Action Reports, and correspondence
documenting that no further remedial actions are necessary at the
sites.
    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 deletion docket on which EPA relied for
recommendation of the deletion from the NPL are available to the public
in the information repository noted above or online at http://www.regulations.gov
.

    Community involvement for the sites that are the subject of this
document has occurred by soliciting public comment on various documents
depending on the individual site's investigation and cleanup (if
needed) process. All No Further Action Decision Documents were issued
for 30-day public comment periods. For those sites where Records of
Decision were finalized, Proposed Plans were issued for 30-day public
comment periods with comments, if any, addressed in the Responsiveness
Summary of the Record of Decision. In addition, sites where non-time
critical removal actions occurred provided public involvement with the
issuance of the engineering evaluation/cost analysis for public
comment.
    Since there are a number of ongoing investigations and cleanup at
MMR, community involvement activities such as monthly Plume Cleanup
Team

meetings will continue to occur. Other activities such as neighborhood
meetings, updates to the MMR Web site, and issuance of news releases
will occur as needed.

C. Current Status

    One of the three criteria for site deletion specifies that EPA may
delete a site (or a portion of a site) from the NPL if ``responsible
parties or other parties have implemented all appropriate response
actions required.'' EPA believes that this criterion has been met for
this partial deletion. In a letter the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
provided their concurrence on the proposed deletion of the sites in
this notice. A copy of this letter is available for review in the
Information Repository as part of the Deletion Docket. EPA with
concurrence from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has determined that
all appropriate CERCLA response actions have been completed at the
sites in this notice and protection of human health and the environment
has been achieved in these sites. Therefore, EPA makes this proposal to
delete only the sites in Table 1 of the MMR Superfund Site from the
NPL.
    Based on the successful completion of removal actions and the
extensive investigations and risk assessments performed, there are no
further response actions planned or scheduled for these sites. Pursuant
to the NCP, a five-year review will not need to be performed at all of
the sites in this notice.
    While EPA does not believe that any future response actions at any
of the sites in this notice will be needed, if future conditions
warrant such action, the proposed deletion sites of the MMR Site remain
eligible for future Fund-financed response actions. Furthermore, this
partial deletion does not alter the status of all the remaining sites
and groundwater plumes of the MMR Site which are not proposed for
partial deletion and remain on the NPL.

    Dated: July 23, 2007.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

                              Table 1.--List of Proposed Sites for Partial Deletion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS-1*                               CS-12*                              FS-17
CS-1 (CG)*                          CS-14*                              FS-18*
CS-2                                CS-15                               FS-19
CS-2 (CG)*                          CS-16/CS-17/DDOU*                   FS-20*
CS-3*                               CS-22                               FS-23
CS-3 (CG)*                          CY-1*                               FS-25*
CS-4*                               CY-3                                FS-26(CG)
CS-4 (CG)/FS-1 (CG)*                FS-2                                FS-27
CS-5*                               FS-2 (CG)                           LF-1 (CG)
CS-5 (CG)*                          FS-3*                               LF-2 (CG)
CS-6*/FS-22                         FS-4                                LF-3
CS-6 (CG)*                          FS-7                                LF-3 (CG)
CS-7*                               FS-9*                               LF-4
CS-7 (CG)*                          FS-13                               LF-5
CS-8/FS-21*                         FS-14                               LF-6
CS-8 (CG)                           FS-15                               SD-2/FS-6/FS-8
CS-9                                FS-16*                              SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4
CS-11*                              ..................................  ........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: CS = Chemical Spill.
 CY = Coal Yard.
 DDOU = Drum Disposal Operable Unit.
 FS = Fuel Spill.
 FTA = Fire Training Area.
 LF = Landfill.
 SD = Storm Drain.
 CG = U.S. Coast Guard.
* Includes structure(s) at site.

                                            Table 2.--No Action Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS-5 (CG)*                          FS-2 (CG)                           LF-2 (CG)
CS-7*                               FS-3*                               LF-3
CS-7 (CG)*                          FS-15                               LF-3 (CG)
CS-12*                              FS-16*                              LF-5
CY-1*                               FS-27                               LF-6
CY-3                                LF-1 (CG)                           ........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: CS = Chemical Spill.
 CY = Coal Yard.
 FS = Fuel Spill.
 FTA = Fire Training Area.
 LF = Landfill.
 SD = Storm Drain.
 USCG = U.S. Coast Guard.
* Includes structure(s)

                                      Table 3.--Sites Where Action Occurred
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CS-1*                               CS-8 (CG)*                          ........................................
CS-1 (CG)*                          CS-9                                FS-14
CS-2                                CS-11*                              FS-17
CS-2 (CG)*                          CS-14*                              FS-18*
CS-3*                               CS-15                               FS-19

CS-3 (CG)*                          CS-16/CS-17/DDOU*                   FS-20*
CS-4*                               CS-22                               FS-23
CS-4 (CG)/FS-1 (CG)*                FS-2                                FS-25*
CS-5*                               FS-4                                FS-26 (CG)
CS-6*/FS-22                         FS-7                                LF-4
CS-6 (CG)*                          FS-9*                               SD-2/FS-6/FS-8
CS-8/FS-21*                         FS-13                               SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: CS = Chemical Spill.
 CY = Coal Yard.
 DDOU = Drum Disposal Operable Unit.
 FS = Fuel Spill.
 FTA = Fire Training Area.
 LF = Landfill.
 SD = Storm Drain.
 USCG = U.S. Coast Guard.
* Includes structure(s)

 [FR Doc. E7-14677 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 149 (Friday, August 4, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36322-36326]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16416]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0356; Special Conditions No. 25-696-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus Model A330-841 and A330-941 (A330 NEO)
Airplanes; Interaction of Systems and Structures

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Airbus Model A330
NEO airplanes. This airplane will have novel or unusual design features
when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the
airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. These design
features include systems that, directly or as a result of failure or
malfunction, affect airplane structural performance. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Airbus on August 4, 2017. We must
receive your comments by September 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0356
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Martin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin
Safety, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
425-227-1178; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior
public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because
these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design
approval and thus delivery of the affected airplanes.
    In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been
subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with
no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds it
unnecessary to delay the effective date and finds that good cause
exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication
in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On January 20, 2015, Airbus applied for an amendment to Type
Certificate no. A46NM to include the new Model A330-841 (A330-800NEO)
and A330-941 (A330-900NEO) airplanes, collectively marketed as Model
A330NEO airplanes. These airplanes, which are derivatives of the Model
A330-200 and A330-300 airplanes currently approved under Type
Certificate no. A46NM, are wide-body, jet-engine airplanes with a
maximum takeoff weight of 533,519 pounds, and a passenger capacity of
257 (A330-841); or a maximum takeoff weight of 535,503 pounds, and a
passenger capacity of 287 (A330-941).

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Airbus must show that the Model A330NEO airplanes meet the
applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No.
A46NM, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change except for earlier amendments as agreed upon
by the FAA.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for Model A330NEO airplanes because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Airbus Model A330NEO airplanes must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Airbus Model A330NEO airplanes will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design features:
    Systems that, directly or as a result of failure or malfunction,
affect airplane structural performance. That is, the airplane's systems
affect how it responds in maneuver and gust conditions, and thereby
affect its structural capability. These systems may also affect the
aeroelastic stability of the airplane. Such systems include flight
control systems, autopilots, stability augmentation systems, load
alleviation systems, and fuel management systems. These systems
represent novel and unusual features when compared to the technology
envisioned in the current airworthiness standards.

Discussion

    Special conditions have been applied on past airplane programs to
require consideration of the effects of systems on structures. The
regulatory authorities and industry developed standardized criteria in
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) forum based on the
criteria defined in Advisory Circular (AC) 25.672-1, dated November 15,
1983. The ARAC recommendations have been incorporated in European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Certification Specifications (CS) 25.302
and CS 25 Appendix K, which are applicable to Airbus. FAA rulemaking on
this subject is not complete, thus the need for the special conditions.
    The special conditions are similar to those previously applied to
other airplane models and to the requirements of CS 25.302. The major
differences between these special conditions and the current CS 25.302
are as follows:
    (1) Both the special conditions and CS 25.302 (and by reference
Appendix K) specify the design load conditions to be considered.
Effects of Systems on Structure, special conditions 2.a. and 3.b.i.,
clarify that, in some cases, different load conditions are to be
considered due to other special conditions or equivalent-level-of-
safety findings.
    (2) Both the special conditions (see special condition 5, below)
and CS 25.302 allow consideration of the probability of being in a
dispatched configuration when assessing subsequent failures and
potential ``continuation of flight'' loads. The special conditions,
however, also allow using probability when assessing failures that
induce loads at the ``time of occurrence,'' whereas CS 25.302 does not.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to
Airbus Model A330NEO airplanes. Should Airbus apply at a later date for
a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions
would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would
significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is
imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment
are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting
these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The
FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views
that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities
for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Airbus Model A330-841 and A330-941
airplanes.
    For airplanes equipped with systems that affect structural
performance, either directly or as a result of a failure or
malfunction, the influence of these systems and their failure
conditions must be taken into account when showing compliance with the
requirements of part 25, subparts C and D.
    For airplanes equipped with flight-control systems, autopilots,
stability-augmentation systems, load-alleviation systems, fuel-
management systems, and other systems that either directly, or as a
result of failure or malfunction, affect structural performance, the
following criteria must be used for showing compliance. If these
special conditions are used for other systems, it may be necessary to
adapt the criteria to the specific system.
    1. The criteria defined herein only address the direct structural
consequences of the system responses and performance. They cannot be
considered in isolation, but should be included in the overall safety
evaluation of the airplane. These criteria may, in some instances,
duplicate standards already established for this evaluation. These
criteria are only applicable to structure the failure of which could
prevent continued safe flight and landing. Specific criteria that
define acceptable limits on handling characteristics or stability
requirements, when operating in the system-degraded or inoperative
mode, are not provided in these special conditions.
    2. Depending upon the specific characteristics of the airplane,
additional studies that go beyond the

criteria provided in these special conditions may be required to
demonstrate the airplane's capability to meet other realistic
conditions, such as alternative gust or maneuver descriptions for an
airplane equipped with a load-alleviation system.
    3. The following definitions are applicable to these special
conditions.
    a. Structural performance: Capability of the airplane to meet the
structural requirements of part 25.
    b. Flight limitations: Limitations that can be applied to the
airplane flight conditions following an in-flight occurrence, and that
are included in the airplane flight manual (e.g., speed limitations,
avoidance of severe weather conditions, etc.).
    c. Operational limitations: Limitations, including flight
limitations, that can be applied to the airplane operating conditions
before dispatch (e.g., fuel, payload and Master Minimum Equipment List
limitations).
    d. Probabilistic terms: Terms such as probable, improbable, and
extremely improbable, as used in these special conditions, are the same
as those used in Sec.  25.1309.
    e. Failure condition: This term is the same as that used in Sec.
25.1309. However, these special conditions apply only to system-failure
conditions that affect the structural performance of the airplane
(e.g., system-failure conditions that induce loads, change the response
of the airplane to inputs such as gusts or pilot actions, or lower
flutter margins).

Effects of Systems on Structures

    1. General. The following criteria will be used in determining the
influence of a system and its failure conditions on the airplane
structure.
    2. System fully operative. With the system fully operative, the
following apply:
    a. Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating
configurations of the system from all the limit conditions specified in
part 25, subpart C (or defined by special conditions or findings of
equivalent level of safety in lieu of those specified in subpart C),
taking into account any special behavior of such a system or associated
functions, or any effect on the structural performance of the airplane
that may occur up to the limit loads. In particular, any significant
nonlinearity (rate of displacement of control surface, thresholds, or
any other system nonlinearities) must be accounted for in a realistic
or conservative way when deriving limit loads from limit conditions.
    b. The airplane must meet the strength requirements of part 25
(static strength, residual strength), using the specified factors to
derive ultimate loads from the limit loads defined above. The effect of
nonlinearities must be investigated beyond limit conditions to ensure
that the behavior of the system presents no anomaly compared to the
behavior below limit conditions. However, conditions beyond limit
conditions need not be considered when it can be shown that the
airplane has design features that will not allow it to exceed those
limit conditions.
    c. The airplane must meet the aeroelastic stability requirements of
Sec.  25.629.
    3. System in the failure condition. For any system-failure
condition not shown to be extremely improbable, the following apply:
    a. At the time of occurrence. Starting from 1g level flight
conditions, a realistic scenario, including pilot corrective actions,
must be established to determine the loads occurring at the time of
failure and immediately after the failure.
    i. For static-strength substantiation, these loads, multiplied by
an appropriate factor of safety that is related to the probability of
occurrence of the failure, are ultimate loads to be considered for
design. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 1, below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU17.015

    ii. For residual-strength substantiation, the airplane must be able
to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in special
condition 3.a.i. For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined
with the normal operating differential pressure.
    iii. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to the
speeds defined in Sec.  25.629(b)(2). For failure conditions that
result in speeds beyond VC/MC, freedom from
aeroelastic instability must be shown to increased speeds, so that the
margins intended by Sec.  25.629(b)(2) are maintained.
    iv. Failures of the system that result in forced structural
vibrations (oscillatory failures) must not produce loads that could
result in detrimental deformation of primary structure.
    b. For the continuation of the flight. For the airplane in the
system-failed state, and considering any appropriate reconfiguration
and flight limitations, the following apply:
    i. The loads derived from the following conditions (or defined by
special conditions or findings of equivalent level of safety in lieu of
the following conditions) at speeds up to VC/MC
(or the speed limitation prescribed for the remainder of the flight)
must be determined:
    1. The limit symmetrical maneuvering conditions specified in
Sec. Sec.  25.331 and 25.345.
    2. the limit gust and turbulence conditions specified in Sec. Sec.
25.341 and 25.345.
    3. the limit rolling conditions specified in Sec.  25.349, and the
limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in Sec. Sec.  25.367, and
25.427(b) and (c).
    4. the limit yaw-maneuvering conditions specified in Sec.  25.351.

    5. the limit ground-loading conditions specified in Sec. Sec.
25.473, 25.491, 25.493(d), and 25.503.
    ii. For static-strength substantiation, each part of the structure
must be able to withstand the loads in special condition 3.b.i.,
multiplied by a factor of safety depending on the probability of being
in this failure state. The factor of safety is defined in Figure 2,
below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU17.016

Qj = (Tj)(Pj)

Where:

Tj = Average time spent in failure mode j (in hours)
Pj = Probability of occurrence of failure mode j (per
hour)

    Note:  If Pj is greater than 10-\3\ per
flight hour, then a 1.5 factor of safety must be applied to all
limit load conditions specified in part 25, subpart C.

    iii. For residual-strength substantiation, the airplane must be
able to withstand two-thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph
3.b.ii. of these special conditions. For pressurized cabins, these
loads must be combined with the normal operating differential pressure.
    iv. If the loads induced by the failure condition have a
significant effect on fatigue or damage tolerance, then their effects
must be taken into account.
    v. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to a speed
determined from Figure 3, below. Flutter clearance speeds V' and V''
may be based on the speed limitation specified for the remainder of the
flight using the margins defined by Sec.  25.629(b).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU17.017

V' = Clearance speed as defined by Sec.  25.629(b)(2).
V'' = Clearance speed as defined by Sec.  25.629(b)(1).

Qj = (Tj)(Pj)

Where:

Tj = Average time spent in failure mode j (in hours)
Pj = Probability of occurrence of failure mode j (per
hour)

    Note:  If Pj is greater than 10-\3\ per
flight hour, then the flutter clearance speed must not be less than
V''.

    vi. Freedom from aeroelastic instability must also be shown up to
V' in Figure 3, above, for any probable system-failure condition,
combined with any damage required or selected for investigation by
Sec.  25.571(b).
    c. Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by
other sections of part 25 regardless of calculated system reliability.
Where analysis shows the probability of these failure conditions to be
less than 10-\9\ per flight hour, criteria other than those
specified in this paragraph may be used for structural substantiation
to show continued safe flight and landing.
    4. Failure indications. For system-failure detection and
indication, the following apply:
    a. The system must be checked for failure conditions, not extremely
improbable, that degrade the structural capability below the level
required by part 25, or that significantly reduce the reliability of
the remaining system. As far as reasonably practicable, the flightcrew
must be made aware of these failures before flight. Certain elements of
the control system, such as mechanical and hydraulic components, may
use special periodic inspections, and electronic components may use
daily checks, in lieu of detection and indication systems, to achieve
the objective of this requirement. These certification-maintenance
requirements

must be limited to components that are not readily detectable by normal
detection-and-indication systems, and where service history shows that
inspections will provide an adequate level of safety.
    b. The existence of any failure condition, not extremely
improbable, during flight, that could significantly affect the
structural capability of the airplane, and for which the associated
reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight
limitations, must be signaled to the flightcrew. For example, failure
conditions that result in a factor of safety between the airplane
strength and the loads of part 25, subpart C below 1.25, or flutter
margins below V'', must be signaled to the crew during flight.
    5. Dispatch with known failure conditions. If the airplane is to be
dispatched in a known system-failure condition that affects structural
performance, or that affects the reliability of the remaining system to
maintain structural performance, then the provisions of these special
conditions must be met, including the provisions of special condition 2
for the dispatched condition, and special condition 3 for subsequent
failures. Expected operational limitations may be taken into account in
establishing Pj as the probability of failure occurrence for
determining the safety margin in Figure 1. Flight limitations and
expected operational limitations may be taken into account in
establishing Qj as the combined probability of being in the
dispatched failure condition and the subsequent failure condition for
the safety margins in Figures 2 and 3. These limitations must be such
that the probability of being in this combined failure state, and then
subsequently encountering limit load conditions, is extremely
improbable. No reduction in these safety margins is allowed if the
subsequent system-failure rate is greater than 10-\3\ per
flight hour.

    Issued in Renton, Washington.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-16416 Filed 8-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 83827]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26411]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0916]

Safety Zone; Military Ocean Terminal Concord Safety Zone, Suisun
Bay, Concord, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in the navigable
waters of Suisun Bay, off Concord, CA, in support of explosive handling
operations at Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) on November 26,
2023, through December 3, 2023. This safety zone is necessary to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
explosion within the explosive arc. The safety zone is open to all
persons and vessels for transitory use, but vessel operators desiring
to anchor or otherwise loiter within the safety zone must obtain the
permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco or a
designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1198 will be enforced from 12:01
a.m. on November 26, 2023, until 11:59 p.m. on December 3, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email LT William Harris, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Management Division, at
415-399-7443, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The Coast Guard will enforce the safety
zone in 33 CFR 165.1198 for the Military Ocean Terminal Concord, CA
(MOTCO) regulated area from 12:01 on November 26, 2023, until 11:59
p.m. on December 3, 2023, or as announced via marine information
bulletin. This safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment from potential explosion within the
explosive arc. The regulation for this safety zone, Sec.  165.1198(a),
specifies the location of the safety zone which encompasses the
navigable waters in the area between 500 yards of MOTCO Pier in
position 38[deg]03'30'' N, 122[deg]01'14'' W and 3,000 yards of the
pier. During the enforcement period, as reflected in Sec.  165.1198(d),
if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you mut
comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated on-scene
patrol personnel. Vessel operators desiring to anchor or otherwise
loiter within the safety zone must contact Sector San Francisco Vessel
Traffic Service at<PHONE_NUMBER> or VHF Channel 14 to obtain permission.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this
enforcement period via marine information broadcasts.

    Dated: November 27, 2023.
Taylor Q. Lam,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2023-26411 Filed 11-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


1 Response to PSEG Corporation Services Docket ID: OW 2004 0020 0007 The brief letter from the PSEG Corporation Services ( PSEGCS) does not address focus groups explicitly, but rather states that PSEGCS agrees with and supports comments submitted by the Utility Water Act Group ( UWAG), of which PSEGCS is a member. Thus, EPA refers interested parties to the document entitled " Response to Comments from the American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Public Power Association, American Petroleum Institute, and Utility Water Act Group and Accompanying Triangle Economic Research ( TER) Report."


[Federal Register: July 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 39012]
[DOCID:fr08jy08-61]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RC08-1-001]

Southeastern Power Administration; Notice of Filing

July 1, 2008.
    Take notice that on June 20, 2008, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) filed a decision addressing the
Commission's February 21, 2008 decision in this proceeding remanding a
NERC registry decision involving the Southeastern Power Administration
(SEPA) for either reconsideration or further explanation.\1\ On remand
NERC states that it has affirmed SERC Reliability Corporation's (SERC)
decision to remove the function of Resource Planner from the NERC
Compliance Registry for SEPA. NERC states that it has affirmed SERC's
decision to retain SEPA's registration as a Transmission Operator.
However, NERC states that it has also directed SERC to evaluate and
determine whether the Army Corps of Engineers should be co-registered
with SEPA as a Transmission Operator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Southeastern Power Administration, 122 FERC ] 61,140 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 21, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-15424 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 196)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62457-62458]
[DOCID:fr12oc10-2]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0354 Airspace Docket No. 10-AAL-10]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Port Clarence, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Port Clarence
Coast Guard Station (CGS), AK. The United States Coast Guard operates
this airstrip and has developed a military-use instrument approach
procedure. This instrument approach procedure at the Port Clarence CGS
Airport has made this action necessary to enhance safety by
establishing Class E airspace for air traffic management of Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) operations.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, January 13, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Derril Bergt, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/
alaskan/rulemaking/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Thursday, June 17, 2010, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking in the Federal Register to establish Class E airspace at
Port Clarence, AK (75 FR 34393).
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments were received. The rule is adopted as proposed.
    The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1,200 ft. transition
areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective
September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
    This final rule also updates the coordinate of longitude that was
published in the notice of proposed rulemaking. The establishment of an
instrument approach procedure necessitated a more accurate survey and
the corrected coordinate is based on this more recent data. With the
exception of editorial changes, and the changes described above, this
rule is the same as that proposed in the NPRM.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace to accommodate a new military-
use special instrument approach procedure at Port Clarence CGS Airport,
Port Clarence, AK. This Class E airspace will provide adequate
controlled airspace upward from 700 feet and 1,200 feet above the
surface for the safety and management of IFR operations at Port
Clarence CGS Airport. The 1,200 foot controlled airspace will extend
into the Norton Sound Low Offshore Airspace Area and

that airspace will be redefined in a future Offshore Airspace action.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Because this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it creates Class E airspace sufficient in size to contain aircraft
executing instrument procedures for the Port Clarence CGS Airport and
represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and efficiently use
the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING
POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, is
amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward From 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Port Clarence, AK [New]

Port Clarence CGS Airport, AK
    (Lat. 65[deg]15'13'' N., long. 166[deg]51'28'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Port Clarence CGS Airport, AK, and
within 1.5 miles either side of the 180[deg] bearing from the Port
Clarence CGS Airport, extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 13.2
miles south of the Port Clarence CGS Airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 73-mile
radius of the Port Clarence CGS Airport, AK, excluding that portion
extending outside the Anchorage Arctic CTA/FIR boundary.

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on September 16, 2010.
Michael A. Tarr,
Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-25479 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 12)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3465-3466]
[DOCID:fr21ja09-26]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1170; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-27]

Proposed Amendment of the Atlantic Low Offshore Airspace Area;
East Coast United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the altitude floor of the
Atlantic Low Offshore Airspace Area, located off the east coast of the
United States (U.S.). The FAA is proposing to lower the floor of the
area from 5,500 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 1,700 feet MSL. This
action would provide additional altitudes for air traffic control to
vector aircraft on arrival to Atlantic City, NJ, ensuring the safety of
aircraft and the efficient use of airspace within the National Airspace
System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the docket number FAA-
2008-1170 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-27 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules
Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2008-1170 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-27) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenter's wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their
comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-
addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made:
``Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2008-1170 and Airspace Docket No. 08-
AEA-27.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the designated altitude floor of
the Atlantic Low Offshore Airspace Area. The proposed change would
lower the floor of the area from 5,500 feet MSL to 1,700 feet MSL.
Currently, Air Traffic Control (ATC) cannot vector arriving aircraft
below 5,500 feet MSL while operating within the Atlantic Low Offshore
Airspace Area. The proposed change would provide additional controlled
airspace so that ATC could use lower altitudes while vectoring aircraft
on arrival to Atlantic City, NJ. The change would increase ATC system
efficiency and reduce complexity at Atlantic City.
    Offshore airspace areas are published in paragraph 6007, of FAA
Order 7400.9S signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31, 2008,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The offshore
airspace area listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs,

describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies the low offshore airspace area in New Jersey.

ICAO Considerations

    As part of this proposal relates to navigable airspace outside the
United States, this notice is submitted in accordance with the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) International
Standards and Recommended Practices.
    The application of International Standards and Recommended
Practices by the FAA, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM,
Airspace & Rules Group, in areas outside the United States domestic
airspace, is governed by the Convention on International Civil
Aviation. Specifically, the FAA is governed by Article 12 and Annex 11,
which pertain to the establishment of necessary air navigational
facilities and services to promote the safe, orderly, and expeditious
flow of civil air traffic. The purpose of Article 12 and Annex 11 is to
ensure that civil aircraft operations on international air routes are
performed under uniform conditions.
    The International Standards and Recommended Practices in Annex 11
apply to airspace under the jurisdiction of a contracting state,
derived from ICAO. Annex 11 provisions apply when air traffic services
are provided and a contracting state accepts the responsibility of
providing air traffic services over high seas or in airspace of
undetermined sovereignty. A contracting state accepting this
responsibility may apply the International Standards and Recommended
Practices that are consistent with standards and practices utilized in
its domestic jurisdiction.
    In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, state-owned
aircraft are exempt from the Standards and Recommended Practices of
Annex 11. The United States is a contracting state to the Convention.
Article 3(d) of the Convention provides that participating state
aircraft will be operated in international airspace with due regard for
the safety of civil aircraft. Since this action involves, in part, the
designation of navigable airspace outside the United States, the
Administrator is consulting with the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense in accordance with the provisions of Executive
Order 10854.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9S, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed October 3,
2008, and effective October 31, 2008, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6007 Offshore Airspace Areas.

* * * * *

Atlantic Low [Amended]

    That airspace extending upward from 1,700 feet MSL bounded on
the east by the Moncton FIR and the New York Oceanic CTA/FIR, on the
south by lat. 34[deg]00'00'' N., on the west and north by a line 12
miles from and parallel to the U.S. shoreline, excluding Federal
airways and the East Coast Low offshore airspace area.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 12, 2009.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
 [FR Doc. E9-1108 Filed 1-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:As an individual consumer, I am writing to request an extension of the comment period for the FDA’s April 25, 2014, Proposed Rule on deeming of tobacco products. I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for a period of time of no less than 4 months. The approval of an extension will allow a period of slightly more than 6 months for comments.

There are a number of significant issues included and questions that are raised in the Proposed Rule.  As a consumer of non-cigar related products that are proposed for regulation, the impact of the Proposed Rule is important and relevant to me. The FDA requests comment on more than a hundred different questions and relevant topics. The Proposed Rule and the other topics raised by the FDA are important and numerous, and I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues.

The FDA, with all of its resources, has been evaluating its approach to the deeming of these impacted products for a minimum of 2 years. It appears that the Proposed Rule is lacking meaningful input from the consumer perspective. The Agency is not acting in good faith if we are only allowed 75 days to provide meaningful comment, feedback and insight after failing to include consumer representation in the formulation of the Proposed Rule.

I feel very strongly that e-cigarettes are a life-saving alternative to combustible cigarettes. I wish to provide you with both my personal story and science/evidence based responses to your questions. To do so, I require more time than the current only 75 day comment period.

The FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the Agency has done so on numerous occasions in the past. I appreciate your consideration of my request and I am happy to discuss this issue with you further.