[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 12, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27979-27984]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09681]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010; FRL-10008-93-Region 7]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Omaha Lead Superfund
Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete 117 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead
Superfund site (Site or OLS) located in Omaha, Nebraska, from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this
proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the
State of Nebraska, through the Nebraska Department of Environment and
Energy, determined that all appropriate Response Actions under CERCLA
were completed at the identified parcels. However, this deletion does
not preclude future actions under CERCLA.
    This partial deletion pertains to 117 residential parcels. The
remaining parcels will remain on the NPL and are not being considered
for deletion as part of this action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2003-0010, by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219 Attention: Elizabeth Hagenmaier,
SUPR Division or Pamela Houston, ECO Office.
     Hand delivery: Environmental Protection Agency Region 7,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219. Such deliveries are only
accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday-Friday excluding
Federal holidays and special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.

     For additional submission methods, please contact the
persons identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2003-0010. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: The docket contains the information that was the basis for
the partial deletion, specifically the documentation regarding the
results of soil cleanup activities. Information regarding the optional
voluntary cleanup activities such as the lead-based paint stabilization
and interior dust sampling is not provided in the docket but is
available from the EPA on a case-by-case basis. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the
hard copy.
    All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 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 the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: EPA
Region 7 Records Center at 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas
66219, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19. We recommend
that you contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section before visiting the Region 7 office.
    The Omaha public libraries also have computer resources available
to assist the public. The W. Dale Clark Library, located at 215 S. 15th
Street, Omaha, NE 68102 is centrally located within the site boundary.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Hagenmaier, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7, SUPR/LMSE,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to the EPA. This section provides additional information
by addressing the following:

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Background and Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    The EPA Region 7 is proposing to delete 117 residential parcels of
the Omaha Lead Superfund site (Site or OLS), from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and is requesting public comment on this proposed
action. The table of 117 Properties Proposed for the 2020 Partial
Deletion of Properties from the Omaha Lead Superfund site, (EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2003-0010-1985) identifies specific properties included for this
proposed partial deletion. The location of the 117 properties are shown
on Figure 1 ``Map for the 2020 Partial Deletion Omaha Lead Site'' (EPA-
HQ-SFUND-2003-0010-1983). The NPL constitutes appendix B of 40 CFR part
300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), which the EPA promulgated pursuant to section
105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The EPA maintains the NPL
as those sites that appear to present a significant risk to public
health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the
subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance
Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Omaha Lead Superfund
site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent
with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on
the National Priorities List 60 FR 55466 (November 1, 1995). As
described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from
the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future
conditions warrant such actions.
    The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete
this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in
the Federal Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is
using for this action. Section IV discusses the 117 residential parcels
of the Omaha Lead Superfund site and demonstrates how they meet the
deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites
from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be
deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In
making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA will
consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following
criteria have been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, the EPA conducts
five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial
actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain
at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. The EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is
deleted from the NPL. The EPA may initiate further action to ensure
continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes
available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a
significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site
may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking
system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the 117 residential
parcels of the Site:
    (1) The EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice
of Intent for Partial Deletion.
    (2) The EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of
this document prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, the EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The State of Nebraska, through the Nebraska Department of
Environment and Energy, has concurred with the deletion of the 117
residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site, from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion in the Federal Register, a notice is being published
in a major local newspaper, the Omaha World Herald. The newspaper
announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of
Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
partial deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available
for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this
document, the EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete the 117 residential
parcels. If necessary, the EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to
address any significant public comments received. After the public
comment period, if the EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete
the 117 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site, the
Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Partial Deletion
in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies
of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to
interested parties and included in the site information repositories
listed above.
    Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself
create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations.
Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter
EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is
designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA
management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion
of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future
response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Background and Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
117 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site from the NPL,
as previously identified.

Site Background and History

    The Omaha Lead Superfund site (Site or OLS [CERCLIS ID #
NESFN0703481]) includes surface soils present at residential
properties, child-care centers, and other residential-type properties
in the city of Omaha, Douglas County, Nebraska. The properties were
contaminated as a result of deposition of aerial emissions from
historic lead smelting and refining operations. The OLS encompasses the
eastern portion of the greater metropolitan area in Omaha, Nebraska.
The site extends from the Douglas-Sarpy County line on the south, north
to Read Street and from the Missouri River on the east to 56th Street
on the west. The Site is centered around downtown Omaha, Nebraska,
where two former lead-processing facilities operated. American Smelting
and Refining Company, Inc. (ASARCO) operated a lead refinery at 500
Douglas Street in Omaha, Nebraska, for over 120 years. Aaron Ferer &
Sons Company (Aaron Ferer), and later Gould Electronics, Inc., (Gould)
operated a lead battery recycling plant located at 555 Farnam Street.
Both ASARCO and Aaron Ferer/Gould facilities released lead-containing
particulates into the atmosphere from their smokestacks. The lead
particles were subsequently deposited on surrounding residential
properties.
    Beginning in 1984, the Douglas County Health Department (DCHD)
monitored ambient air quality around the ASARCO facility. This air
monitoring routinely measured ambient air lead concentrations in excess
of the ambient air standard. Between 1972 and 1998 the DCHD measured
the blood lead level in children within the county. The results of the
measurements indicated a high incidence of elevated blood lead level in
children. Blood lead screening of children living in zip codes located
east of 45th Street consistently exceeded 10 micrograms per deciliter
([mu]g/dl) more frequently than children living elsewhere in the
county.
    In 1998, the Omaha City Council requested assistance from the EPA
to address the high incidence of children found with elevated blood
lead levels by the DCHD. In 1999, the EPA initiated an investigation
into the lead contamination under the authority of Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). On
February 26, 2002, the OLS was proposed for the NPL (67 FR 8836), and
on April 30, 2003, the OLS was listed on the NPL (68 FR 23077).
    The OLS includes those residential properties where the EPA
determined through soil sampling that soil lead levels represent an
unacceptable risk to human health. Residential properties where soil
sampling indicates that lead concentrations in the soil are below a
level that represent an unacceptable risk are not included in the Site.
Residential properties include those with high accessibility to
sensitive populations (children seven years of age and younger [0 to 84
months] and pregnant or nursing women). The properties include single
and multi-family dwellings, apartment complexes, child daycare
facilities, vacant lots in residential areas, schools, churches,
community centers, parks, greenways, and any other areas where children
may be exposed to site-related contaminated media. Commercial and
industrial properties are excluded from the definition of the Site.
    The residential properties proposed for deletion from the NPL site
were cleaned up under both CERCLA removal and remedial authority.
Regardless of the authority used for the remediation of yards, the
cleanup levels for soils for all the properties proposed for deletion
were the same.

Response Actions

    The initial EPA response was conducted under CERCLA removal
authority. Due to the size of the site and the very large number of
individual properties, it was necessary to prioritize sites for
cleanup. The prioritization was based on factors such as the elevated
blood level of children at each property and the lead concentration in
the soil at each property. The result was a series of action levels
that reflected the priority of categories of sites. Consequently, the
action level for the site soils changed over time from 2500 mg/kg to
400 mg/kg, as the highest priority sites were cleaned up first. The
cleanup level was established using the Integrated Exposure Uptake
Biokinetic (IEUBK) model to determine the concentration to which the
lead is cleaned up at each property within the site. The cleanup level
for the OLS is 400 mg/kg of lead in the soil. The cleanup level of 400
mg/

kg was selected to allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
The cleanup level has not changed, and all properties, regardless of
the action level, were cleaned up to 400 mg/kg.

Removal Activities

    Beginning in March 1999, the EPA began collecting soil samples from
properties that provided licensed child daycare services. The initial
removal action dated August 2, 1999, consisted of excavation and
replacement of contaminated soil where the lead concentration exceeded
the action levels identified in the Action Memorandum. Response actions
were implemented at properties that met either of the following
criteria:
     A child seven years of age or younger (0 to 84 months)
residing at the property was identified with an elevated blood level
(EBL) exceeding 15 [mu]g/dl (this EBL was reduced to 10 [mu]g/dl in
August 2001) and a soil sample collected from a non-foundation quadrant
exhibited lead concentrations greater than 400 mg/kg, or
     A property was used as a child-care facility and a soil
sample collected from a non-foundation quadrant exhibited a lead
concentration greater than 400 mg/kg.
    On August 22, 2002, the EPA initiated a second removal action. This
second removal action included all other residential type properties
where the maximum non-foundation soil lead concentration exceeded an
action level of 2,500 mg/kg. The 2002 Action Memorandum explicitly
identifies the possibility of lead-based paint as a potential
contributor to lead contamination of soils within thirty inches of the
foundation of a painted structure. Due to the potential contribution of
deteriorating lead-based paint near the foundations of structures, a
lead concentration greater than 400 mg/kg in the soil in the drip zone
(areas near structure foundations) was not, in itself, sufficient to
trigger soil removal. However, if a soil sample from any mid-yard
quadrant exceeded the action level, soil was removed from all areas of
the property exceeding the 400 mg/kg cleanup level, including the drip
zone. In November 2003, the EPA amended the second removal action to
reduce the action level to 1,200 mg/kg concentration of lead in soil.
In March 2004, the EPA amended the second removal action to combine the
two removal actions. In March 2005, the EPA amended the removal action
to reduce the action level from 1200 mg/kg to 800 mg/kg.
    At properties determined to be eligible for response under either
of the Action Memoranda, soil with lead concentrations greater than the
cleanup level was excavated and replaced with clean soil and the
excavated areas were revegetated.
    EPA signed an Interim Recored of Decision on December 15, 2004.
Beginning with the construction season of 2005, the scope of the
removal action was expanded to address the requirements of the 2004
Interim ROD to include: (1) Stabilization of deteriorating exterior
lead-based paint at properties where the continued effectiveness of the
soil remediation was threatened; (2) response to interior dust at
properties where interior dust lead levels exceeded applicable
criteria; (3) public health education; and (4) participation in a
comprehensive remedy with other agencies and organizations that
addresses all identified lead hazards in the Omaha community.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)--Human Health Risk
Assessment

    As part of the RI/FS, the EPA developed a Human Health Risk
Assessment (HHRA) for the Site using site-specific information
collected during the OLS Remedial Investigation. Lead was identified as
the primary contaminant of concern. The HHRA also identified arsenic as
a potential contaminant of concern, but arsenic was eliminated based on
its relatively low overall risk to residents and lack of connection to
the release from the industrial sources being addressed by this
Superfund action.
    The risk assessment for lead focused on young children under the
age of seven (0 to 84 months) who are site residents. Young children
are most susceptible to lead exposure because they have higher contact
rates with soil or dust, absorb lead more readily than adults, and are
more sensitive to the adverse effects of lead than are older children
and adults. The effect of greatest concern in children is impairment of
the nervous system, including learning deficits, reduced intelligence,
and adverse effects on behavior. The IEUBK model for lead in children
was used to evaluate the risks posed to young children (0 to 84 months)
resulting from the lead contamination at the site. Because lead does
not have a nationally-approved reference dose (RfD), cancer slope
factor, or other accepted toxicological factor which can be used to
assess risk, standard risk assessment methods cannot be used to
evaluate the health risks associated with lead contamination. The
modeling results determined that there was an unacceptable risk to
young children from exposure to soils above 400 mg/kg.
    In October 2008, the EPA released a draft Final Remedial
Investigation. Based on the 2008 data set, EPA established the boundary
of the Final Focus Area for the Site. The Final Focus Area is generally
bounded by Read Street to the north, 56th Street to the west, Harrison
Street (Sarpy County line) to the south, and the Missouri River to the
east, and encompasses 17,280 acres (27.0 square miles). By the time the
Final Remedial Investigation was completed, the EPA had collected soil
samples from 37,076 residential properties, including 34,565 properties
within the Final Focus Area's boundary. In total, 34.2 percent of
properties sampled through completion of the 2008 RI had at least one
mid-yard sample with a soil lead level exceeding 400 mg/kg. In addition
to soil sampling, the EPA collected dust samples from the interior of
159 residences to support the OLS Human Health Risk Assessment.

Record of Decision

    The EPA completed the Final Record of Decision (ROD) for the OLS in
May 2009. The Remedial Action Objective is to reduce the risk of
exposure of young children to lead such that an individual child, or
group of similarly exposed children, have no greater than a 5 percent
chance of having a blood-lead concentration exceeding 10 [mu]g/dl. The
selected remedy includes the following components:

 Excavation and Replacement of Soils Exceeding 400 mg/kg Lead
 Stabilization of Deteriorating Exterior Lead-Based Paint
 Response to Lead-Contaminated Interior Dust
 Health Education
 Operation of a Local Lead Hazard Registry as a type of
Institutional Control
Each of these components is described below.

Remedial Actions

Excavation and Replacement of Soils Exceeding 400 mg/kg Lead

    Excavation of soils was accomplished using lightweight excavation
equipment and hand tools in the portions of the yard where the
concentration of lead in the surface soil exceeded 400 mg/kg.
Excavation continued in all quadrants, play zones, and drip zone areas
exceeding 400 mg/kg lead until the residual lead concentration measured
at the exposed surface of the excavation was less than 400 mg/kg in the
upper foot, or less than 1,200 mg/kg at depths

greater than one foot. Typically, soil excavation depths were between
six and ten inches in depth. Soils in garden areas were excavated until
reaching a residual concentration of less than 400 mg/kg in the upper
two feet measured from the original surface, or less than 1,200 mg/kg
at depths greater than two feet.
    After confirmation sampling verified that cleanup goals were
achieved, the excavated areas were backfilled with clean soil to
original grade and sod was placed over the remediated areas.
    The EPA's remediation contractors stockpiled contaminated soil in
staging areas, collected samples, and subsequently transported soil to
an off-site subtitle D solid waste disposal landfill for use as daily
cover and/or disposal.

Stabilization of Deteriorating Exterior Lead-Based Paint

    The EPA used the lead-based paint assessment protocol, presented in
the Final Lead-Based Paint Recontamination Study Report prepared for
the OLS, to determine eligibility for exterior lead-based paint
stabilization at those properties where soil lead concentrations
exceeded 400 mg/kg. At those properties where the exterior lead-based
paint assessment identified a threat from deteriorating paint to the
continued protectiveness of the soil remedy, the owner of the property
was offered stabilization of painted surfaces on structures located on
the property. Exterior lead-based paint stabilization is not mandatory
and was provided to those qualifying property owners who chose to have
their exterior paint stabilized. Removal of loose and flaking lead-
based paint was performed using lead-safe practices as described in
EPA's Renovate, Repair and Painting Rule. The practices include wet
scraping, and collection of paint chips using plastic sheeting. Scraped
areas were primed and all previously painted surfaces had two coats of
paint applied.

Response to Lead-Contaminated Interior Dust

    As part of the final remedy, residents at eligible properties are
provided the opportunity to have interior dust sampled. The interior
dust response is not mandatory, and the resident may choose to decline.
If the property owner agrees, the EPA collects samples of dust from
interior surfaces. The analytical data is provided to the resident/
tenant in a letter and the letter informs them whether any HUD criteria
are exceeded. The Douglas County Health Department conducts follow up
activities at any residence where the concentration of lead in the
interior dust levels exceed the HUD criteria. For those residences that
qualify and where the resident agrees, the residents are provided with
a high-efficiency household vacuum cleaner, training on the maintenance
and the importance of proper usage of the vacuum, and education on
mitigation of household lead hazards. The Douglas County Health
Department also provides training and education regarding the need to
mitigate interior dust.
    Exterior lead-based paint stabilization and interior dust response
were conducted retroactively at properties where soil cleanups were
performed under CERCLA removal authority, as well as to properties
addressed under CERCLA remedial authority.

Health Education

    There are a number of identified lead hazards within the OLS, not
all of which are connected to the contaminant source of the OLS. To
better address all potential lead sources within the OLS, a health
education program was developed and continues to be implemented to
increase public awareness and mitigate exposure. An active educational
program continues in cooperation with agencies and organizations that
include Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the
Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (NDHHS), DCHD, local
non-governmental organizations, and other interested parties. The
following, although not an exhaustive list, indicate the types of
educational activities provided at the Site:
     Support for in-home assessments for children identified
with elevated blood lead levels.
     Development and implementation of lead poisoning
prevention curriculum in schools.
     Support for efforts to increase community-wide blood lead
monitoring.
     Physicians' education for diagnosis, treatment, and
surveillance of lead exposure.
     Operation of Public Information Centers to distribute
information and respond to questions about the EPA response activities
and lead hazards in the community.
     Use of mass media (television, radio, internet, print
media, etc.) to distribute health education messages.
     Development and distribution of informational tools such
as fact sheets, brochures, refrigerator magnets, etc., to inform the
public about lead hazards and measures that can be taken to avoid or
eliminate exposure.

Institutional Controls

    The Omaha Lead Registry, (available at www.omahalead.org) is a GIS
based database that provides the public with on-line access to the
status of the EPA investigation and response actions. The EPA notifies
residents and property owners about the information that is available
through the lead hazard registry as part of the transmittal sent at the
completion of soil remediation at each individual property.

Community Involvement

    The EPA worked extensively with the Omaha community through a
variety of communication vehicles including, but not limited to: local
speaking engagements, participation in citizens' groups and city
council meetings, local public access television, public service
announcements on local cable television, coverage on radio, television,
in local and national newspapers, mass mailings of informational
materials, public outreach by telephone, conducting public meetings,
and through the EPA website.
    The EPA has been performing outreach to Omaha citizens, elected
officials, school officials, health officials, the media, nonprofit
groups, and others since becoming involved in the project in an effort
to convey information about the hazards of lead poisoning, particularly
the ways that lead affects the health of children. The EPA participated
in numerous formal and informal meetings to explain EPA's role and
commitment in Omaha, convey information about the Superfund process,
and provide general information about the site and lead contamination.
The EPA responds to inquiries on a daily basis regarding the site and
individual property owner's sampling results.
    In January 2004, a Community Advisory Group (CAG) was formed for
the OLS site. A CAG is a committee, task force, or board made up of
residents affected by a Superfund site. The CAG provided a public forum
where representatives with diverse community interests could present
and discuss their needs and concerns related to the site and the
cleanup process. The CAG was discontinued after the last meeting was
held in October 2011. A new group, Child Lead Poisoning Prevention
Group, formed. The first meeting of the Child Lead Poisoning Group was
held at City Hall in May 2012. The Group is no longer active.

Five-Year Review

    The EPA completed the second Five-Year Review for the site in
August 2019.

Five-Year Reviews for the site are statutory. The triggering action for
the Five-Year Review is the completion of the first Five-Year Review
for the site in September 2014.
    The protectiveness of the remedy was deferred in the Five-Year
Review because the remedy had not been completed at all of the
properties within the site boundary. However, cleanup activities at the
117 residential parcels included in this partial deletion action are
complete and protective of human health. There are no issues or
recommendations in the Five-Year Review related to these 117
residential parcels proposed for deletion.
    The next Five-Year Review will be completed in August 2024.

Summary of EPA Work Completed

Soil Testing and Remediation

    The EPA Region 7 completed the EPA lead portion of the remedial
action on December 29, 2015. The city of Omaha and the Douglas County
Health Department will be performing the remaining field work. As of
December 29, 2015, the EPA collected soil samples from 42,047
properties. There are 489 remaining properties to be sampled. The EPA
has obtained access to collect samples from 163 of the 489 properties.
    Based on the soil sampling results, 14,019 properties were eligible
for soil remediation. The EPA remediated lead contaminated soil at
13,090 properties (93 percent) of the properties that were eligible for
remediation. There are approximately 929 remaining properties that are
eligible for soil remediation. The EPA obtained access to remediate
fifty-one of the remaining properties.

Lead-based Paint Testing and Stabilization

    The EPA tested 12,057 properties for the presence of lead-based
paint (LBP). Six thousand seven hundred and eighty-two (6,782)
properties qualify for LBP stabilization. The EPA completed LBP
stabilization on 6,249, (92 percent) of the eligible properties.

Dust Sampling

    The EPA collected dust samples from 3,933 properties consisting of
4,477 residences for lead contaminated dust. These numbers reflect the
fact that some of the properties are multi-residence properties.

Continuing Remedial Action

    The EPA completed Cooperative Agreements with the city of Omaha and
the Douglas County Health Department that provide funds to allow these
local government agencies to continue efforts to obtain access to the
remaining properties and conduct sampling and remediation activities at
those properties where they obtain access.

Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Has Been Achieved

    In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), Region 7 of the EPA finds
that the 117 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site (the
subject of this deletion action) meet the substantive criteria for
deletion from the NPL. The EPA has consulted with and has the
concurrence of the state of Nebraska. All responsible parties or other
persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required. All
appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA was implemented, and no
further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.
    The implemented remedy at the 117 residential parcels has achieved
the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD for all pathways of
exposure. All selected remedial action objectives and associated
cleanup levels are consistent with agency policy and guidance. No
further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the
environment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: April 29, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2020-09681 Filed 5-11-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 101 (Thursday, May 27, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28501-28503]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11137]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 101 / Thursday, May 27, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0382; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00382-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series
700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and
CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a determination that new airworthiness limitations for
structural inspections and safe life components are necessary. This
proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new airworthiness
limitations. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 12,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact MHI RJ
Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Qu[eacute]bec J7N 1E1
Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free
telephone +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial telephone +1-514-855-8500; fax
+1-514-855-8501; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://mhirj.com.
You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0382; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antariksh Shetty, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-
794-5531; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0382; Project Identifier
MCAI-2021-00382-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Antariksh Shetty, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section,
FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-53, dated December 7,
2020 (also referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series
700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and
CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. You may examine the
MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0382.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new
airworthiness

limitations for structural inspections and safe life components are
necessary. The FAA is proposing this AD to address reduced structural
integrity and reduced controllability of the airplane. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    MHI RJ Aviation ULC has issued MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-05-
001, dated August 27, 2020. This service information describes new
airworthiness limitations for structural inspections and safe life
components.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new airworthiness
limitations.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(i)(1) of this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 554 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:
    The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the
FAA recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. In
the past, the FAA has estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per
airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program
changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-
operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
Therefore, the FAA estimates the total cost per operator to be $7,650
(90 work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier,
Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2021-0382; Project Identifier MCAI-2021-00382-
T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by July 12, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to MHI RJ Aviation ULC airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) and
CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes, serial numbers
10002 and subsequent.
    (2) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24
(Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 and
subsequent.
    (3) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes,
serial numbers 19001 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic
Inspections.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that new airworthiness
limitations for structural inspections and safe life components are
necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address reduced structural
integrity and reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 180 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the airworthiness limitations for structural inspections
and safe life components specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of
this AD.
    (1) The task number, model effectivity, threshold, repeat cut-
in, repeat, and task type

for the Section 2 structural inspections specified in paragraph
2.B.(2)(a) of the Accomplishment Instructions of MHI RJ Service
Bulletin 670BA-05-001, dated August 27, 2020.
    (2) The task number, part number, model effectivity, and discard
time for the Section 3 safe life components specified in paragraph
2.B.(3)(a) of the Accomplishment Instructions of MHI RJ Service
Bulletin 670BA-05-001, dated August 27, 2020.

(h) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the
actions and intervals are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If
sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or MHI RJ
Aviation ULC's TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved
by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2020-53, dated December 7, 2020, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2021-0382.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Antariksh
Shetty, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact MHI
RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Qu[eacute]bec J7N
1E1 Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-
free telephone +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial telephone +1-514-855-
8500; fax +1-514-855-8501; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://mhirj.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on May 21, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-11137 Filed 5-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P