[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44529-44533]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20348]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011; FRL-9967-25-Region 5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Nutting Truck & Caster Co.
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Nutting Truck &
Caster Co. Superfund Site (Site), located in Faribault, Rice County,
Minnesota from the National Priorities List (NPL). 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). This direct final deletion is being published
by EPA with the concurrence of the State of Minnesota, through the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), because EPA has determined
that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed.
However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under
Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective November 24, 2017 unless
EPA receives adverse comments by October 25, 2017. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2005-0011 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be submitted by
email or mail to Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or hand deliver: Superfund Records Center, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
7th Floor South, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The normal business hours are Monday through Friday, 8
a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the site information
repositories.
    Locations, contacts, phone numbers and viewing hours are:
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Region 5, Superfund Records
Center, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 7th Floor South, Chicago, IL 60604,
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Buckham Memorial Library, 11 Division Street E, Faribault, MN
55021, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: Monday and Wednesday, 9 a.m. to 6
p.m., Tuesday and Thursday 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., Friday and Saturday 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Site Deletion
V. Deletion Action

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 5 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Nutting

Truck & Caster Co. Site (Site) from the NPL and requests public comment
on this action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300,
which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105
of CERCLA, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of 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). As described in
Sec.  300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain
eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions
warrant such actions.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action is effective November 24, 2017, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by October 25, 2017.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Nutting Truck & Caster Co.
Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V
discusses EPA's action to delete the site from the NPL unless adverse
comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that 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), 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.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of Minnesota prior to developing
this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete
co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the State thirty (30) working days for review
of this action and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to
their publication today, and the State, through the MPCA, has concurred
on the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrent with the publication of this direct final Notice of
Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent
to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, the
``Faribault Daily News''. The newspaper document announces the 30-day
public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the
Site from the NPL.
    (4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion
in the deletion docket and made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified
above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to
Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion 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. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The Nutting Truck & Caster Co. Superfund Site (CERCLIS ID:
MND006154017) is located at 85 Prairie Avenue (formerly reported as
1201 or 1221 W. Division Street) in Faribault, Minnesota. The Site
covers approximately 8.6 acres of the former 11 acre Nutting Truck &
Caster Co. (Nutting) property that was used for manufacturing and waste
disposal activities. The Site is bound on the west by Prairie Avenue
and the southeast by railroad tracks. The majority of the north Site
boundary is approximately 250 feet south of Division Street. The Site
is accessed via Prairie Avenue. The property is currently owned by
Prairie Avenue Leasing, Ltd., and is utilized for commercial and light
industrial uses. The property includes an industrial/commercial
building with loading docks. Most of the remainder of the property is
paved. A cell tower is located on the property.
    Single-family homes and an Islamic Center are located to the west
and north of the Site. The residences and other water-users on and near
the Site are connected to the municipal water supply. Nutting
manufactured casters, wheels and hand trucks at the Site from 1891 to
1984. Prior to 1979, Nutting disposed wastes in an unlined seepage pit
in a former gravel pit on the Site. The wastes were primarily solvents
and sludges containing cadmium, lead, cyanide, methylene chloride,
trichloroethylene (TCE) and xylene.
    The MPCA issued a Notice of Noncompliance to Nutting for their past
TCE disposal practice at the Site in 1979. Nutting excavated the sludge
and contaminated soil from the former seepage pit under MPCA oversight
in 1980. Nutting land spread the excavated material on Rice County
property adjacent to the Rice County Landfill in accordance with MPCA
Permit MNL051748. Nutting backfilled the pit with clean fill and paved
the area over with concrete. MPCA determined that the source materials
were effectively removed, but that groundwater contamination remained
at the Site above drinking water standards.
    EPA proposed the Site to the NPL on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658)
and finalized the Site on the NPL on September 21, 1984 (49 FR 37055).
MPCA added Nutting to its State Superfund Priority List, known as the
Permanent List of Priorities (PLP), in 1984. MPCA took the lead in
addressing the Site through its State environmental response authority
under the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA) of
1983.
    MPCA issued a Request for Response Action (RFRA) to Nutting in
September 1983 and a Response Order by Consent to Nutting in April 1984
(1984 Order). The 1984 Order required Nutting to conduct a remedial
investigation (RI) and to make recommendations concerning further
response actions that may be necessary at the Site. EPA was not a party
to the 1984 Order because the Site was a State enforcement lead site.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    Nutting completed the RI and recommended response actions for
groundwater in 1986. MPCA issued a second Response Order by Consent to
Nutting on September 22, 1987 (1987 Order). EPA was not a party to the
1987 Order. The 1987 Order required Nutting to develop and implement a
Response Action Plan (RAP) for groundwater remediation. MPCA required
this action based on the possibility that the groundwater contamination
immediately downgradient of the Nutting Site could pose a potential
future threat to the Faribault well field. Nutting submitted a RAP to
MPCA in response to the 1987 Order. MPCA approved the RAP and Nutting
implemented the RAP in 1987. The RAP called for the extraction and
treatment of contaminated groundwater and continued groundwater
monitoring.

Selected Remedy

    Soil: MPCA's selected remedy for soil was the soil excavation
Nutting conducted pursuant to MPCA's 1979 Notice of Noncompliance.
Nutting excavated the contaminated soil and material from the seepage
pit located in the west central area of the property. Nutting disposed
of these materials, which were the Site's major source of TCE
contamination, off-site. This removal action achieved MPCA's
residential soil clean-up goals. Nutting backfilled the excavated pit
with clean fill and paved the area with concrete. The area is currently
used as a loading dock and parking area. The soil removal action
objectives for the Site are: (1) To eliminate the possibility of
precipitation facilitating the migration of contaminants through the
soil; and (2) to eliminate access to the former seepage pit area by
potential receptors.
    Groundwater: The remedial action objectives (RAOs) for Site
groundwater are documented in the 1987 RAP. The groundwater RAOs are to
prevent the migration of contaminated groundwater away from the Site
and to ensure the protection of downgradient aquifers for future use as
a potable water supply. Nutting installed a groundwater pump-and-treat
(P&T) system at the Site to prevent the contaminated groundwater from
migrating away from the Site in 1987. Nutting also installed a system
of downgradient compliance wells to assess the effectiveness of the
groundwater remedy.
    MPCA set the cleanup level for groundwater in the RAP at 50 parts
per billion (ppb) for TCE in the upper aquifer units. MPCA's objective
was to ensure that the downgradient drinking water aquifers would be
protected. TCE levels in groundwater could not exceed 50 parts per
billion (ppb) in the compliance wells. The compliance wells were the
wells that were the closest to the Site, 350-400 feet downgradient of
the Nutting property boundary. Several of the sentinel wells located on
private properties were subsequently sealed due to requests from
property owners.
    The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) recommended that the
Minnesota Health Risk Limit (HRL) for TCE be changed from 30 ppb to 5
ppb in 2002. This lower value coincides with EPA's Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) for TCE under the Safe Drinking Water Act. MPCA prepared an
amended RAP to modify the groundwater clean-up goals for the Site from
50 ppb of TCE to the present MCL/HRL action level of 5 ppb in 2003.

Response Actions

    Nutting constructed and began operating the groundwater extraction
system at the Site in 1987. The extraction system consisted of two
wells. One extraction well was installed in the shallower, glacial
outwash unit of the upper aquifer and one extraction well was installed
in the deeper, St. Peter Sandstone unit of the upper aquifer. The St.
Peter Sandstone unit of the upper aquifer is above the lower, Prairie
du Chien aquifer, which is the source of drinking water. Groundwater
flow in both aquifers is to the north. Both extraction wells were
located just north of the Site on Division Street West. Nutting treated
the extracted groundwater on-Site using a gravity cascade to remove the
TCE and other volatile organic compounds. Nutting discharged the
treated groundwater to a municipal storm water sewer.

Cleanup Levels

    MPCA lowered the cleanup level for TCE to 5 ppb in an amended RAP
in 2003. Groundwater sampling demonstrated that the extraction system
achieved the 5 ppb cleanup standard for TCE in the off-site compliance
wells in 2004. Nutting shut down the extraction wells in 2004 with the
approval of the MPCA.
    Nutting prepared a Long-term Monitoring Plan in June 2004 that
contained a two-tier monitoring plan for removing the groundwater
treatment system. This document also contained criteria and contingency
plans for restarting the groundwater treatment system.
    Nutting continued to monitor the groundwater until 2007. In 2007,
MPCA determined that the cleanup standard for groundwater was met and
maintained at the compliance wells and that no additional groundwater
monitoring was required. Nutting sealed all extraction and monitoring
wells with MPCA approval in 2008. MPCA terminated the 1987 Order and
deleted the Site from its PLP in 2009.
    EPA reviewed the Site in 2010. EPA determined that no further
action was necessary to protect public health or welfare or the
environment at the Site. EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in 2010
stating that all appropriate MERLA response actions, which parallel
CERCLA response actions, were completed at the Site, and that long-term
monitoring indicates that the soil and the groundwater at the Site do
not pose a threat to public health or welfare or the environment. EPA's
ROD determined that because the actions taken at the Site removed the
potential for risks to human health and the environment, these actions
meet EPA clean-up standards, and no further action is required. EPA's
ROD also determined that Site conditions allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure.
    EPA reviewed the historical groundwater data from the Site in 2013
when preparing to delete the Site from the NPL. During this review, EPA
determined that the drinking water standard for TCE was, in fact, not
being met throughout the plume. This standard would have to be achieved
throughout the plume before the Site could be deleted from the NPL. EPA
raised this issue with MPCA.
    MPCA contracted the Antea Group (Antea) to re-install two
groundwater monitoring wells at the Site to address this issue. Antea
re-installed nested groundwater monitoring well B4R in the glacial
outwash/St. Peter Sandstone upper aquifer and W13R in the Prairie du
Chien lower aquifer in 2014 to confirm that the MCL was attained in the
on-Site plume. Antea sampled the groundwater during 15 sampling events
from August 2014 to November 2016. Antea sampled lower aquifer well
W13R during all 15 sampling events and upper aquifer well B4R during
the first 11 events under EPA direction.
    The analytical results from all 11 sampling events from B4R showed
TCE concentrations below the cleanup level of 5 ppb. The analytical
results from the first seven W13R sampling events showed TCE levels
below 10 ppb, with the final eight sampling events under the cleanup
level of 5 ppb. Because the last eight consecutive groundwater sampling
events at the Site show that the TCE cleanup level of 5 ppb is being

met throughout the plume, EPA's requirements for Site closeout are
achieved. No additional groundwater monitoring is required.
    MPCA tasked Antea to conduct additional sampling to assess whether
there was any potential risk from soil vapor intrusion in 2015. Antea
advanced five soil gas probes to depths of six to eight feet below
ground surface around the northwest corner of the Site downgradient of
the former disposal pit. The analytical results were below the
screening values for all constituents on the Minnesota Soil Gas List
and total hydrocarbons. These results indicate that the risk for vapor
intrusion is minimal and that additional vapor intrusion actions are
not necessary.

Operation and Maintenance

    This Site does not require any operation and maintenance (O&M)
activities. Site soil and groundwater meet all cleanup objectives and
no further remedial action or O&M is required. The MPCA will
permanently abandon the re-installed monitoring wells, which are no
longer needed for the collection of groundwater data.
    Nutting executed an Environmental Covenant and Easement at the Site
on October 28, 2008. The MPCA required this institutional control as
part of the State delisting requirement from the State PLP. The
covenant provides additional and enforceable protection of public
health and the environment, as it provides that: (1) No wells can be
installed on the property without the approval of the MPCA; (2) all
monitoring and extraction wells have been properly abandoned as a
condition of the Environmental Covenant; (3) the property owner is
required to report to the MPCA on an annual basis that conditions at
the Site remain consistent with land use prescribed in the zoning
requirements; and (4) any proposed changes in land use require that
MPCA be notified to determine if the changes will adversely affect the
protectiveness of the completed remedy. It should be noted that this
covenant is not required by EPA.

Five Year Reviews

    MPCA conducted five-year reviews (FYRs) of the Site in 1994, 1998,
2003 and 2008. MPCA conducted the last FYR of the Site in 2008. MPCA's
2008 FYR concluded that the remedial actions at the Site were
protective of human health and the environment in the short-term, and
that long-term protectiveness would be achieved when the groundwater
cleanup standards were attained and the State-required institutional
controls were in place. The Site-wide remedy protects human health and
the environment because exposure pathways that could result in
unacceptable risks have been controlled through the completed remedial
activities.
    MPCA deleted the Site from the State PLP in 2009. EPA's 2010 ROD
determined that all appropriate MERLA response actions, which parallel
CERCLA response actions, have been completed. Long-term monitoring
indicates that the soil and groundwater at the Site do not pose a
threat to public health or welfare or the environment. EPA's 2010 ROD
does not require subsequent FYRs since Site conditions allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA, MPCA, Antea and the Site
property owner conducted a final inspection at the Site on November 15,
2016. EPA completed a Final Close Out Report for the Site on April 11,
2017.

Community Involvement

    EPA and MPCA satisfied public participation activities as required
in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA Section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. MPCA published notifications announcing the FYR and
inviting the public to comment and express their concerns about the
Site in the Faribault Daily News at the start of the 1994, 1998, 2003
and 2008 FYRs. EPA published a document about its proposed no further
action plan for the Site, the 30-day public comment period, and the
availability of a public meeting, if requested, in the Faribault Daily
News in 2010. EPA mailed a proposed plan fact sheet with information
about the Site and announcing a 30-day public comment period to the
addresses on the Site mailing list prior to issuing its final decision
in the 2010 ROD. EPA did not receive any comments during the public
comment period or any requests for a public meeting.
    EPA published a document announcing this proposed Direct Final
Deletion in the Faribault Daily News prior to publishing this deletion
in the Federal Register. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA
relied on for recommending the deletion of this Site from the NPL are
available to the public in the information repositories and at https://www.regulations.gov.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    This Site meets all of the site completion requirements as
specified in Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
Directive 9320.2-22, Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List
Sites. All cleanup actions specified in the RAP have been implemented,
and the Site has achieved the RAP cleanup objectives or has been
cleaned up to acceptable risk levels for all media and exposure
pathways as noted in the 2010 EPA ROD. The RAOs and associated clean-up
goals are consistent with Agency policy and guidance. Confirmation
groundwater sampling and soil vapor results provide further assurance
that the Site no longer poses a threat to human health or the
environment. Therefore, the EPA has determined that no further
Superfund response is necessary at the Site to protect human health and
the environment.
    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from
the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in
consultation with the State of Minnesota, has determined that all
required response actions have been implemented and no further response
action by the responsible parties is appropriate.

V. Deletion Action

    EPA, with concurrence from the State of Minnesota through the MPCA,
has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have
been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This direct final
deletion is effective November 24, 2017 unless EPA receives adverse
comments by October 25, 2017. If adverse comments are received within
the 30-day public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal
of this direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of
the deletion, and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response
to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received. There
will be no additional opportunity to comment.

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, and Water supply.

    Dated: August 21, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended
as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 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.

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry
``MN'', ``Nutting Truck & Caster Co'', ``Faribault''.

[FR Doc. 2017-20348 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 117 (Wednesday, June 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34739-34740]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14242]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9912-45-OA]

Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Chartered Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the
Chartered Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) to conduct
quality reviews of draft CASAC reports on EPA's Recommendation for an
additional Federal Reference Method for Ozone and on EPA's Integrated
Review Plan for the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
Sulfur Dioxide.

DATES: The teleconference will be held on Wednesday, July 16, 2014 from
10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Time).
    Location: The public teleconference will be conducted by telephone
only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing to
obtain information concerning the public teleconference may contact Mr.
Aaron Yeow, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via telephone at (202)
564-2050 or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information about the CASAC,
as well as any updates concerning the meeting announced in this notice,
may be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/casac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CASAC was established pursuant to the
Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, codified at 42 U.S.C.
7409(d)(2), to review air quality criteria and NAAQS and recommend any
new NAAQS and revisions of existing criteria and NAAQS as may be
appropriate. The CASAC shall also provide advice, information, and
recommendations to the Administrator on the scientific and technical
aspects of issues related to the criteria for air quality standards,
research related to air quality, sources of air pollution, and of
adverse effects which may result from various strategies to attain and
maintain air quality standards. The CASAC is a Federal Advisory
Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5
U.S.C., App. 2. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given
that the Chartered CASAC will hold a public teleconference to conduct
quality reviews of draft CASAC reports on EPA's Recommendation for an
Additional Federal Reference Method

for Ozone and on EPA's Integrated Review Plan for the Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Dioxide.
    The CASAC quality review process ensures that all draft reports
developed by CASAC panels, committees or workgroups are reviewed and
approved by the Chartered CASAC before being finalized and transmitted
to the EPA Administrator. These reviews are conducted in a public
meeting or teleconference as required by FACA.
    The EPA is proposing the addition of the Nitric Oxide (NO)-
Chemiluminescence method as an additional Federal Reference Method
(FRM) for ozone. The CASAC Air Monitoring and Methods Subcommittee
(AMMS) reviewed the scientific and technical aspects of a draft
document that supports the EPA's recommendation to add the NO-
Chemiluminescence method as an FRM and developed the draft report
``Review of EPAs Recommendation for an Additional Federal Reference
Method for Ozone-Nitric Oxide-Chemiluminescence''. The Chartered CASAC
will conduct a quality review of this draft CASAC report. Background
information about this advisory activity can be found on the CASAC Web
site at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/O3%20FRM%3A%20NO-Chemiluminescence?OpenDocument.
    The EPA's Integrated Review Plan for the Primary NAAQS for Sulfur
Dioxide (External Review Draft--March 2014) presents the planned
approach for the review of the primary (health-based) NAAQS for sulfur
oxides. The CASAC Augmented for Sulfur Oxides Panel reviewed this
document and developed the report ``Draft CASAC Review of the EPA's
Integrated Review Plan for the Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for Sulfur Dioxide.'' The Chartered CASAC will conduct a
quality review of this draft CASAC report. Background information about
this advisory activity can be found on the CASAC Web site at http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr--activites/
SO2%20Primary%20NAAQS%20Review?OpenDocument.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Prior to the meeting, the review
documents, agenda and other materials will be accessible through the
calendar link on the blue navigation bar at http://www.epa.gov/casac/.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office.
    Federal advisory committees and panels, including scientific
advisory committees, provide independent advice to EPA. Members of the
public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider
as it develops advice for EPA. Interested members of the public may
submit relevant written or oral information on the topic of this
advisory activity, and/or the group conducting the activity, for the
CASAC to consider during the advisory process. Input from the public to
the CASAC will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific
or technical information or analysis for CASAC panels to consider or if
it relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information.
Members of the public wishing to provide comment should contact the DFO
directly.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation on a public teleconference will be limited to three
minutes. Each person making an oral statement should consider providing
written comments as well as their oral statement so that the points
presented orally can be expanded upon in writing. Interested parties
should contact Mr. Aaron Yeow, DFO, in writing (preferably via email)
at the contact information noted above by July 9, 2014 to be placed on
the list of public speakers.
    Written Statements: Written statements should be supplied to the
DFO via email at the contact information noted above by July 9, 2014 so
that the information may be made available to the Panel members for
their consideration. Written statements should be supplied in one of
the following electronic formats: Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS
PowerPoint, or Rich Text files in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format. It
is the SAB Staff Office general policy to post written comments on the
Web page for the advisory meeting or teleconference. Submitters are
requested to provide an unsigned version of each document because the
SAB Staff Office does not publish documents with signatures on its Web
sites. Members of the public should be aware that their personal
contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted
to the CASAC Web site. Copyrighted material will not be posted without
explicit permission of the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Aaron Yeow at (202)
564-2050 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Mr. Yeow preferably at least ten days prior
to each meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.

    Dated: June 11, 2014.
Thomas H. Brennan,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-14242 Filed 6-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 36)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9666-9668]
[DOCID:fr22fe08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28381; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-164-AD;
Amendment 39-15383; AD 2008-04-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 707 Airplanes, and Model
720 and 720B Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Boeing Model 707 airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes.
This AD requires revising the FAA-approved maintenance program by
incorporating new airworthiness limitations (AWLs) for fuel tank
systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88
requirements. This AD also requires the initial performance of certain
repetitive AWL inspections to phase in those inspections, and repair if
necessary. This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank
systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for ignition
sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures, alterations,
repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination with flammable
fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss
of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 28, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 28,
2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathrine Rask, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6505; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to include an AD that would apply to all Boeing Model 707
airplanes, and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. That NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2007 (72 FR 36370). That
NPRM proposed to require revising the FAA-approved maintenance program
by incorporating new airworthiness limitations (AWLs) for fuel tank
systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88
requirements. That NPRM also proposed to require the initial
performance of certain repetitive AWL inspections to phase in those
inspections, and repair if necessary.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comment received.

Changes Made to This AD

    For standardization purposes, we have revised this AD in the
following ways:
     We have added a new paragraph (i) to this AD to specify
that no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or critical
design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) may be used unless
they are part of a later approved revision of Boeing 707/720
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) Document D6-7552-AWL, dated March
2006, or unless they are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC). Inclusion of this paragraph in the AD is intended to
ensure that the AD-mandated airworthiness limitations changes are
treated the same as the airworthiness limitations issued with the
original type certificate.
     We have simplified the language in Note 1 of this AD to
clarify that an operator must request approval for an AMOC if an
operator cannot accomplish the required inspections because an airplane
has been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas
addressed by the required inspections.

Request To Change Wording in Note 1 of the NPRM

    Boeing requests that we change the wording in Note 1 of the NPRM as
follows:
     Change ``new inspections and maintenance actions'' to
include the words ``according to paragraph (g)'' after ``actions.''
     Change ``the operator must request approval for revision
to the airworthiness limitations'' to ``the operator must request
approval for deviation from the airworthiness limitations.''
     Remove ``as applicable'' from the last sentence of the
note and change the paragraph reference from ``paragraph (g) or (i)''
to ``paragraph (i).''
    Boeing explains that the current wording is difficult to follow.
    As stated previously, we have simplified the language in Note 1 of
this AD for standardization with other similar ADs. The language the
commenter requests we change does not appear in the revised note;
therefore, no additional change to this AD is necessary in this regard.

Credit for Prior Accomplishment of AWL 28-AWL-01

    We have added a statement to paragraph (h) of this AD specifying
that accomplishment of AWL 28-AWL-01 as part of an FAA-approved
maintenance program prior to the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD constitutes compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (h).

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data, including the
comment received, and determined that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD with the changes described previously.
We have determined that these changes will neither increase the
economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 213 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 76 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The required actions take about 8 work hours per airplane, at an
average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the
estimated cost of the AD for U.S. operators is $48,640, or $640 per
airplane.

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.
    We are 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

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
    (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) 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

2008-04-11 Boeing: Amendment 39-15383. Docket No. FAA-2007-28381;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-164-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective March 28, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 707-100 long body, -200,
-100B long body, and -100B short body series airplanes; Model 707-
300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes; and Model 720 and 720B
series airplanes; certificated in any category.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these limitations, 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) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a design review of the fuel tank
systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for
ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures,
alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Service Information

    (f) The term ``D6-7552-AWL March 2006,'' as used in this AD,
means Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) Document D6-
7552-AWL, dated March 2006.

Revision of AWLs Section

    (g) Before December 16, 2008, revise the FAA-approved
maintenance program by incorporating the information in the sections
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD, except
that the initial inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD
must be done at the time specified in paragraph (h). Accomplishing
the revision in accordance with a later revision of D6-7552-AWL
March 2006 is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is
approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA.
    (1) Section B., ``FUEL SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,'' of
D6-7552-AWL March 2006.
    (2) Section C., ``SYSTEM AWL PAGE FORMAT,'' of D6-7552-AWL March
2006.
    (3) Section D., ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--FUEL SYSTEMS,'' of
D6-7552-AWL March 2006.

Initial Inspection and Repair if Necessary

    (h) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and
(h)(2) of this AD: Do a detailed inspection of external wires over
the center fuel tank for damaged or loose clamps, wire chafing, and
wire bundles in contact with the surface of the center fuel tank, in
accordance with Section D, ``AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS--FUEL
SYSTEMS,'' AWL 28-AWL-01, of D6-7552-AWL March 2006. If any
discrepancy is found during this inspection, repair the discrepancy
before further flight in accordance with D6-7552-AWL March 2006.
Accomplishing the actions required by this paragraph in accordance
with a later revision of D6-7552-AWL March 2006 is an acceptable
method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager,
Seattle ACO. Accomplishing AWL 28-AWL-01 as part of an FAA-approved
maintenance program prior to the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD constitutes compliance with
the requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 36,000 total flight cycles, or
within 120 months since the date of issuance of the original
standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs
first.
    (2) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.

    Note 2: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or CDCCLs

    (i) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g)
and (h) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection
intervals, or CDCCLs may be used unless the inspections, intervals,
or CDCCLs are part of a later revision of D6-7552-AWL March 2006,
that is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO; or unless the
inspections, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if

requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (k) You must use Boeing 707/720 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs)
Document D6-7552-AWL, including attachment, dated March 2006, to
perform the actions that are required by this AD, unless the AD
specifies otherwise. (Only the first page of the attachment contains
the document date; no other page of the attachment contains this
information.) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this document in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Contact Boeing Commercial
Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for a copy
of this service information. You may review copies at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-
register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 13, 2008.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-3189 Filed 2-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P