[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34206-34208]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13855]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0565; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-16-AD;
Amendment 39-17075; AD 2012-10-52]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Hartzell Engine Technologies
Turbochargers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Cessna
206, 207, and 210 airplanes with Hartzell Engine Technologies (HET)
turbochargers, part numbers (P/Ns)<PHONE_NUMBER> and<PHONE_NUMBER>,
installed. This emergency AD was sent previously to all known U.S.
owners and operators of these airplanes. This AD requires removing the
affected turbochargers from service before further flight. This AD was
prompted by a report of an HET turbocharger causing an engine in-flight
power rollback. We are issuing this AD to prevent turbocharger bearing
seizure, failed turbocharger components, and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective June 26, 2012 to all persons except those
persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD 2012-
10-52, issued on May 14, 2012, which contained the requirements of this
amendment.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication identified in the AD as of June 26,
2012.
    We must receive comments on this AD by July 26, 2012.

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 http://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 AD, contact Hartzell
Engine Technologies, LLC, 2900 Selma Highway, Montgomery, AL 36108,
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: http://www.hartzellenginetech.com/service_bulletins.html#turbos.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations Office
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 street address for
the Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Richards, Aerospace
Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 2300 E. Devon
Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On May 14, 2012, we issued Emergency AD 2012-10-52, which requires
removing HET turbochargers, P/Ns<PHONE_NUMBER> and<PHONE_NUMBER>, before
further flight. This action was prompted by a report of an HET
turbocharger causing an engine in-flight power rollback. Upon
investigation, the turbocharger was found to have incorrectly located
oil passages in the center housing, causing insufficient oil flow to
the bearings. This condition, if not corrected, could result in
turbocharger bearing seizure, failure of the turbocharger turbine shaft
or wheel, and damage to the airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Hartzell Engine Technologies Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB) No. 047, dated May 8, 2012. The ASB indentifies the part numbers
and serial numbers of affected turbochargers and describes procedures
for removing them from service.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other turbochargers of the same design.
We are evaluating whether the affected population needs to expand to
include supplemental type certificate and parts manufacturer approval
installations and may take further action.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires removing the affected turbochargers from service
before further flight.

Minor Clarification

    In the previously sent emergency AD, applicability paragraph (c)(2)
inadvertently stated ``Turbochargers with P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> or P/N
406610-9005 overhauled or repaired on or later than January 1, 2012,
with the same turbocharger center housing P/N and date code H-0112.''
That paragraph in this AD is clarified to state ``Turbochargers with P/
N<PHONE_NUMBER> or P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> overhauled or repaired on or later
than January 1, 2012, with turbocharger center housing P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>
and date code H-0112.'' Applicability paragraph (c)(3) of the
previously sent emergency AD, referenced this same turbocharger center
housing P/N, which also needs to be referenced in paragraph (c)(2).

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the
affected turbochargers need to be removed from service before further
flight. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public
comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this
amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2012-0565 and
Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-16-AD at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 80 airplanes of U.S. registry with
affected turbochargers installed. We also estimate that it will take
about 4 work-hours to remove a turbocharger from service. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators to be $27,200.

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

    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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

    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 FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2012-10-52 Hartzell Engine Technologies: Amendment 39-17075; Docket
No. FAA-2012-0565; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-16-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 26, 2012 to all persons except those
persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD
2012-10-52 issued on May 14, 2012, which contained the requirements
of this amendment.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This emergency AD applies to the following Hartzell Engine
Technologies (HET) turbochargers:
    (1) Turbocharger HET part number (P/N)<PHONE_NUMBER> or P/N
406610-9005 with serial numbers listed in Table 1 of HET Alert
Service Bulletin No. 047, dated May 8, 2012.
    (2) Turbochargers with P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> or P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>
overhauled or repaired on or later than January 1, 2012, with
turbocharger center housing P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> and date code H-0112.
    (3) Turbocharger center housings P/N<PHONE_NUMBER> sold as piece
parts which are in field/distributor inventory with date code H-
0112.
    These turbochargers are installed on, but not limited to, Cessna
206, 207, and 210 airplanes with Continental Motors, Inc TSIO-520-C,
-G, -H, -M, and -R reciprocating engines installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an HET turbocharger causing
an engine in-flight power rollback. Upon investigation, the
turbocharger was found to have incorrectly located oil passages in
the center housing, causing insufficient oil flow to the bearings.
This condition, if not corrected, could result in turbocharger
bearing seizure, failure of the turbocharger turbine shaft or wheel,
and damage to the airplane. We are issuing this AD to prevent
turbocharger bearing seizure, failed turbocharger components, and
damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Before further flight, remove from service the turbochargers
identified in paragraph (c) of this emergency AD, unless already
done.

(f) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19
to make your request.

(h) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Christopher
Richards, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office,
FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51 of the following service information on the date specified.
You must use the following service information to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (2) Hartzell Engine Technologies Alert Service Bulletin No. 047,
dated May 8, 2012.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Hartzell Engine Technologies, LLC, 2900 Selma Highway, Montgomery,
AL 36108, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: http://www.hartzellenginetech.com/service_bulletins.html#turbos.
    (4) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference 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 Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 30, 2012.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-13855 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


2. UV Intensity and UVT Setpoint Approach. This approach is similar to the UV intensity sensor setpoint approach, except that the UV sensor is placed close to the lamp such that it only responds to changes in UV lamp output. UVT is monitored separately. For a specific flowrate, the UV intensity and UVT measurements are used to monitor dose delivery. The setpoints for UV intensity and UVT over a range of flowrates are determined during validation.

3. Calculated UV Dose Approach. In this approach, the UV intensity sensor is placed close to the lamp, which is similar to the UV intensity and UVT setpoint approach. Flowrate, UVT, and UV intensity are all monitored, and the outputs are used to calculate UV dose via a validated computational algorithm developed by the UV reactor manufacturer.

The strategy for dose monitoring depends on the manufacturer and may be proprietary. Dose monitoring recommendations are discussed in section 5.4.2.

2.5 Water Quality Impacts and Byproduct Formation Constituents in the water subjected to treatment affect the performance of UV disinfection. In addition, all disinfectants can form byproducts, and the goal of the overall disinfection process is to maximize disinfection while minimizing byproduct formation. This section discusses water quality characteristics impacting UV disinfection performance and finishes with a discussion of byproducts formed during the UV disinfection process.

2.5.1 Water Quality Impacts UVT, particle content, and constituents that foul lamp sleeves and other wetted components are the most significant water quality factors impacting UV disinfection effectiveness. In spite of these effects, the impact of water quality on dose delivery can be adequately addressed in virtually all drinking water applications if carefully considered during the design of the UV disinfection system, as discussed in section <IP_ADDRESS>.

The most important water quality parameter affecting reactor performance is UVT. As UVT decreases, the intensity throughout the reactor decreases for a given lamp configuration. This results in a reduction in UV dose delivered to the microorganism and the measured UV Proposal Draft 2. Overview of UV Disinfection UV Disinfection Guidance Manual 2 23 June 2003 intensity for a given lamp output. Section <IP_ADDRESS> discusses how to incorporate the impact of UVT into UV disinfection system design.

Several chemicals used in water treatment processes can decrease the UVT of water ( e. g., Fe+ 3 and ozone). However, some oxidants ( including ozone) can increase the UVT ( APHA et al. 1998) by degrading natural organic matter. Water treatment processes upstream of the UV reactors can be operated to control UVT, thereby optimizing the design and costs of the UV reactor ( section A. 4.1.3 and section <IP_ADDRESS>).

Particle content can also impact UV disinfection performance. Particles may scatter light and reduce the UV intensity delivered to the microorganisms. Particles may also shield microorganisms from UV light, effectively reducing disinfection performance.

Compounds in the water can cause fouling in a UV reactor on the external surfaces of the lamp sleeves and other wetted components ( e. g., monitoring windows of UV intensity sensors). Fouling on the lamp sleeves reduces the transmittance of UV light through the sleeve into the water, thereby reducing power efficiency. Fouling on the monitoring windows impacts UV intensity and dose monitoring. Hardness, alkalinity, temperature, iron concentration, and pH all influence the rate of fouling and, subsequently, the frequency of sleeve cleaning. The following compounds can cause fouling:

  Compounds whose solubility decreases as temperature increases will precipitate ( e. g., CaCO3, CaSO4, MgCO3, MgSO4, FePO4, FeCO3, Al2( SO4) 3). These compounds will foul MP lamps faster than LP lamps due to differences in operating temperature.

  Compounds with low solubility will precipitate ( e. g., Fe( OH) 3, Al( OH) 3).

  Particles will deposit on the lamp sleeve surface due to gravity settling and turbulence induced collisions ( Lin et al. 1999a).

Fouling rate kinetics have been reported as first order over time following a short induction period ( Lin et al. 1999b). Depending on the water quality and UV lamp type, significant fouling may occur in hours or take up to several months. Although there is currently not sufficient information to predict fouling based on water quality, a facility can use the Langelier Saturation Index ( LSI) or the Calcium Carbonate Precipitation Potential ( CCPP) as a tool to determine if precipitation is likely to occur ( section A. 4.1.4). Data have been generated from pilot scale testing on waters of low to moderate hardness and iron content ( Mackey et al. 2001 and Mackey et al. 2003). At total and calcium hardness levels less than 140 mg/ L and iron less than 0.1 mg/ L, standard cleaning protocols and wiper frequencies ( one sweep every 15 minutes to an hour) were sufficient to overcome the impact of sleeve fouling at all sites tested. At sites with high hardness or iron in the feed water, it may be advantageous to evaluate fouling rates as described in section J. 5.1 on a site specific or worst case basis via pilot scale or demonstration scale testing to identify how best to keep the lamp sleeves clean.

Table 2.3 is a summary of water quality data and the fouling observed for various pilot and full scale UV reactors. All of the MP systems shown had mechanical cleaning ( except at Boxalls Lane), and the LPHO systems used manual chemical cleaning. The fouling observed at individual sources is reported as shown in the following list:

Proposal Draft 2. Overview of UV Disinfection UV Disinfection Guidance Manual 2 24 June 2003   Not Significant   no significant drop in UV intensity ( based on UV intensity sensor readings)

  Moderate   slight decrease in UV intensity and slight scale observed on sleeves   Significant   large decrease in UV intensity and significant deposits observed on sleeves Table 2.3 Water Quality Data and Fouling Observed for UV Disinfection Pilot and Demonstration Studies Name of Plant Boxalls Lane1 Atlanta2 Ulrich Water Treatment Plant2 Central Utah2 Neenah Water Utility2 Cudahy Water Utility2 Location Hampshire, UK Atlanta, GA Austin, TX Orem, UT Neenah, WI Cudahy, WI Lamp Type MP MP/ LPHO MP/ LPHO MP/ LPHO MP/ LPHO/ LP MP/ LPHO/ LP A254 ( cm 1) NA 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.03 LSI NA NA NA 0.5 0.7  0.1 Iron ( mg/ L) NA < 0.04 0.01 < 0.02 0.02 0.01 Manganese ( mg/ L) NA < 0.015 < 0.001 < 5.03 0.003 0.012 Calcium Hardness ( mg/ L as CaCO3) NA NA 40 162 54 80 Hardness ( mg/ L as CaCO3) 325 370 21.5 101 180 87 138 Alkalinity ( mg/ L as CaCO3) 260 280 13.7 60 159 52 125 pH 7.1 7.2 6.6 9.6 7.8 9 7.7 Fouling Observed not significant not significant4 moderate5 not significant moderate6 not significant not significant 1 Bourgine et al. 1995 2 Mackey et al. 2001 3 Detection Limit 4 Cleaning wipers on ( MP system) 5 Cleaning wipers off ( MP system) 6 After 8 months of operation ( LPHO system) NA = Not available None of the systems studied and listed in Table 2.3 exhibited " significant" fouling, and in all cases, the observed fouling was controllable by regular system maintenance and cleaning.

Lastly, algae may grow upstream or downstream of UV reactors. Visible light emitted from the lamps is transmitted through water at further distances than germicidal wavelengths.

Proposal Draft 2. Overview of UV Disinfection UV Disinfection Guidance Manual 2 25 June 2003 Depending on the concentration of nutrients in the water and the amount of visible light transmitted beyond the reactor, algae growth may need to be controlled through periodic maintenance.

2.5.2 Byproducts from UV Disinfection UV DBPs arise either directly through photochemical reactions or indirectly through reactions with products of photochemical reactions ( section A. 4.2). Photochemical reactions will only take place if a chemical species absorbs UV light, and the resulting excited state reacts to form a new species. The resulting concentration of new species will depend on the concentration of the reactants and the UV dose.

In drinking water, research has focused on the impact of UV light on the formation of halogenated DBPs after subsequent chlorination and the transformation of organic material to more degradable components. For ground water and filtered drinking water, UV disinfection at typical doses has been shown not to impact the formation of trihalomethanes or haloacetic acids, two categories of DBPs currently regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) ( Malley et al. 1995; Kashinkunti et al. 2003).

Several studies have shown low level formation of non regulated DBPs ( e. g., aldehydes) as a result of applying UV light to wastewater and raw drinking water sources. However, a study performed with filtered drinking water indicates no significant change in aldehydes, carboxylic acids, or total organic halides ( TOX) ( Kashinkunti et al. 2003). The difference in results can be attributed to the difference in water quality, most notably the higher concentration of organic material in raw waters and wastewaters.

Finally, the conversion of nitrate to nitrite is possible with MP lamps that emit at low wavelengths ( von Sonntag and Schuchman 1992). However, due to the low conversion rate ( about 1 percent; Sharpless and Linden 2001), this is of minimal concern in drinking water applications.

Proposal Draft


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 138 (Friday, July 17, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43427-43428]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15362]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0398; Airspace Docket No. 20-ACE-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Webster City, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Webster City Municipal Airport, Webster
City, IA. This action is the result of an airspace review due to the
decommissioning of the Webster City non-directional beacon (NDB). The
geographic coordinates of the airport are also being updated to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautic database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 5, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Webster City Municipal Airport, Webster City, IA, to
support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 27333; May 8, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0398 to
amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Webster City Municipal Airport, Webster City, IA. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface of Webster City Municipal Airport, Webster City, IA,
by removing the Webster City NDB and associated extension from the
airspace legal description; and updates the geographic coordinates of
the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is due to an airspace review due to the decommissioning
of the Webster City NDB which provided navigation information to the
instrument procedures at this airport.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Webster City, IA [Amended]

Webster City Municipal Airport, IA
    (Lat. 42[deg]26'11'' N, long. 93[deg]52'08'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Webster City Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 13, 2020.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-15362 Filed 7-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36658-36662]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15255]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0007; FRL-9912-81-Region 5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Naval Industrial
Reserve Ordnance Plant (NIROP) Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA Region 5 is publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion
of Operable Unit 2 (OU2) of the Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant
(NIROP) Superfund Site (Site), located in Fridley, 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 partial 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 at the OU, identified herein, other than
operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed.
However, this partial deletion does not preclude future actions under
Superfund.
    EPA divided the NIROP Site into three portions, known as OUs, for
ease of addressing its contaminant issues. This partial deletion
pertains to OU2, which includes all the unsaturated soils within the
legal boundaries of the NIROP Superfund Site exclusive of unsaturated
soils underlying the former Plating Shop Area (see Site Map in the SEMS
ID 446572 document listed in the Deletion Docket for OU2). The
following areas will remain on the NPL and are not being considered for
deletion as part of this action: OU1 and OU3. OU1 includes the
contaminated groundwater within and originating from the NIROP
Superfund Site. OU3 includes all the unsaturated soils underlying the
former Plating Shop Area.

DATES: This direct final partial deletion is effective August 29, 2014
unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 30, 2014. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final partial 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-1989-0007, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     Email: Sheila Desai, Remedial Project Manager, at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Teresa Jones, Community Involvement
Coordinator, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: Gladys Beard at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Sheila Desai, Remedial Project Manager,
Environmental Protection Agency (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER> or Teresa Jones, Community
Involvement Coordinator, Environmental Protection Agency (SI-7J), 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll free
at 1-(800) 621-8431.
     Hand delivery: Teresa Jones, Community Involvement
Coordinator, Environmental Protection Agency (SI-7J), 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. 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, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CST, excluding
federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1989-0007. 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 Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means 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 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, 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 EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, 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: 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 at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
     Environmental Protection Agency Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CST, excluding federal holidays.
     The Navy has set up an online repository for the NIROP
Superfund Site at the link below. Please click on the Administrative
Records link to see all the documents. http://go.usa.gov/DyNY
     The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency also has an
information repository for the NIROP Superfund Site at their offices:
520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155. Call<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll-free
at<PHONE_NUMBER> to schedule an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila Desai, Remedial Project
Manager, Environmental Protection Agency (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><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 divided the NIROP Superfund Site into three portions, known as
OUs, for ease of addressing its contaminant issues. EPA Region 5 is
publishing this Direct Final Notice of Partial Deletion of OU2 of the
NIROP Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comments on this action. OU2 includes all the
unsaturated soils within the legal boundaries of the NIROP Superfund
Site exclusive of unsaturated soils underlying the former Plating Shop
Area (see Site Map in the SEMS ID 446572 document listed in the
Deletion Docket for OU2). The following areas will remain on the NPL
and are not being considered for deletion as part of this action: OU1
and OU3. OU1 includes the contaminated groundwater within and
originating from the NIROP Superfund Site. OU3 includes all the
unsaturated soils underlying the former Plating Shop Area. This partial
deletion pertains to soil in OU2. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40
CFR part 300, which is the NCP, and 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).
This partial deletion of the NIROP 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) on November 1, 1995. As described in
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 will be effective August 29, 2014 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by July 30, 2014. Along with this Direct
Final Notice of Partial Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of
Intent for Partial Deletion in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the
Federal Register. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish
a timely withdrawal of this Direct Final Notice of Partial Deletion
before the effective date of the partial deletion, and the deletion
will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a response to
comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and the comments already
received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
    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 OU2 of the NIROP Superfund Site
and demonstrates how the deletion criteria are met for this OU. Section
V discusses EPA's action to partially delete OU2 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:
    1. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    2. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    3. 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, 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. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. 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 OU2 of the NIROP
Superfund Site:
    1. EPA consulted with the State of Minnesota prior to developing
this Direct Final Notice of Partial Deletion and the Notice of Intent
for Partial Deletion co-published today in the

``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register.
    2. EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this
direct final Notice of Partial Deletion and the parallel Notice of
Intent for Partial Deletion prior to their publication today, and the
State, through the MPCA, has concurred on the partial deletion of the
Site from the NPL.
    3. Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of
Partial Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice
of Intent for Partial Deletion is being published in the Sun Focus,
located in Fridley, Minnesota. The newspaper notice announces the 30-
day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    4. 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,
i.e., at EPA's offices in Chicago and online.
    5. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish a
timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to
comments. EPA may continue with the deletion process on the basis of
the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and the comments already
received.
    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. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting OU2
of the NIROP Superfund Site from the NPL. EPA believes it is
appropriate to delete OU2 of the NIROP Superfund Site because all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed at OU2 and it
is ready for redevelopment as a commercial and/or industrial property.

Site Background and History

    The NIROP Superfund Site (CERCLIS ID MN3170022914) is located in
the northern portion of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area in
an industrial/commercial area within the limits of Fridley, Minnesota.
The Site is not adjacent to any residential areas and is not located in
an environmentally sensitive area nor near any known environmentally
sensitive areas.
    The Site is approximately 82.6 acres, most of which are covered
with buildings or pavement. The U.S. Navy and/or its contractors
produced advanced weapons systems at the facility beginning in 1940.
The former NIROP facility is currently owned by Fridley Land, LLC which
plans to redevelop the property for commercial and/or industrial use.
    During the early 1970s, paint sludges and chlorinated solvents
generated from ordnance manufacturing processes were disposed of in
pits and trenches in the North 40 area which is the undeveloped area of
the Site immediately north of the building. Contaminant sources in the
North 40 area and beneath the NIROP building were not identified until
December 1980, when MPCA received information concerning historical
waste disposal practices at NIROP. In 1981, trichloroethylene (TCE) was
discovered in on-site groundwater wells and in the City of Minneapolis'
drinking water treatment plant intake pipe, located in the Mississippi
River less than 1 mile downstream from the Site. In 1983,
investigations identified pits and trenches in the North 40 area of the
NIROP Site where drummed wastes had been disposed of. From November
1983 to March 1984, approximately 1,200 cubic yards of contaminated
soil and 43 (55-gallon) drums were excavated and disposed of off-site.
    The NIROP Superfund Site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL in
July 1989 (54 FR 29820). The Site was placed on the NPL in November
1989 (54 FR 48184).
    In March 1991, the Navy, EPA, and MPCA signed a Federal Facilities
Agreement (FFA). Per the FFA, one purpose of that agreement was to
''Identify alternatives for Remedial Action for Operable Units'' which
are appropriate for the Site prior to the implementation of Final
Remedial Actions for the Site.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    Based on the results of a geophysical investigation conducted in
1995, 23 (55-gallon) drums and 12 smaller containers were found in the
North 40 area of the NIROP property. These drums were excavated during
a removal action conducted from April to June of 1996. In 1996, during
a sampling event of OU2 soils, in the vicinity of a previously
unexcavated area near the North 40 area, free liquids were encountered
which resulted in an additional removal action. A total of 31 (55-
gallon) drums were discovered and subsequently sampled and removed for
off-site disposal. In addition, several empty and crushed drums were
also discovered and removed with other contaminated debris. Volatile
organic compound contamination was reported in subsurface soils.
    A risk assessment for OU2 was conducted in 1996. In a revision of
that risk assessment, it was determined that in one sub-area of OU2,
risk was inordinately influenced by one single data point. Therefore,
during the summer of 2002, the Navy conducted a time-critical removal
action to remove approximately 35 cubic yards of soil around this OU2
subarea with an elevated contaminant concentration. This removal was
completed in June 2002, and addressed the last know location where
there were unacceptable contaminant risks in near surface soils.

Record of Decision (ROD) Findings

    The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) were (1) to prevent
unacceptable risks due to residential or other unrestricted exposures
to contaminated soils at the site and (2) to prevent unacceptable risks
to industrial or construction workers due to exposures to contaminated
soils at the site. The ROD for OU2 was jointly signed in September 2003
by the Navy, EPA and MPCA.
    This is the only ROD for this site applicable to this partial
deletion.

ROD for OU2 (September 2003)

    The Selected Remedy to address unacceptable risk at OU2 of the
NIROP Site is Land Use Controls (LUCs). The ROD called for LUCs to be
maintained until EPA and MPCA determine that the concentrations of
hazardous substances in the soils have been reduced to levels that
allow for a less restrictive use of the Site.
    The LUC Performance Objectives for OU2 are:
     To restrict the use of the property to industrial or
restricted commercial use, until EPA and MPCA determine that
concentrations of hazardous substances in the soils have been reduced
to levels that allow for less restrictive use.
     To prohibit the disturbance of soil deeper than 3 feet
below ground surface

in those Designated Restricted Areas, which include Area 3 and Area 4
of OU2 (see Site Map in the SEMS ID 446572 document listed in the
Deletion Docket for OU2) or the removal of any soils excavated in those
areas from the facility without prior written approval of EPA and MPCA.
    The property will be restricted to only industrial or restricted
commercial uses. Industrial uses generally include, but are not limited
to, the following types: public utility services, rail and freight
services, raw storage facilities, refined material storage facilities,
and manufacturing facilities engaged in the mechanical or chemical
transformation of materials or substances into new products. Restricted
commercial use is defined as use where access or occupancy by non-
employees is less frequent or is restricted, including a wide variety
of uses, ranging from non-public access and both outdoor and indoor
activities (e.g., large scale warehouse operations), to limited public
access and indoor worker activities (e.g., shopping mall, retail
outlet, bank, dentist office). Strictly prohibited uses under either
category shall include any child care or pre-school facility,
playground, any form of housing, churches, social centers, hospitals,
elder care facilities or nursing homes.

Remedial Design (RD)

    In August 2004, EPA concurred with the Navy's March 2004 Land Use
Control Remedial Design (LUCRD) for OU2. The LUCRD specifies how the
OU2 remedy will be implemented, maintained, and enforced should any
breach of the remedy occur. It details the Navy's continuing
responsibilities with respect to OU2, including the following: ensuring
annual on-site physical inspections of OU2 are performed to confirm
continued compliance with all LUC Performance Objectives; ensuring
annual LUC Compliance Certifications are provided to EPA and MPCA that
explain any deficiency, if found; conducting five-year reviews of the
remedy as required by CERCLA and the NCP; notifying EPA and MPCA prior
to any planned property conveyance; providing EPA and MPCA the
opportunity to review the text of intended deed provisions; and
notifying EPA and MPCA should site activities interfere with LUC
effectiveness.

Response Activities/LUCs

    The LUCs were incorporated into a Quitclaim Deed that was
implemented on June 17, 2004, and executed by the property owner, the
United States, and MPCA, and that acts as an environmental covenant
describing the property restrictions. These deed restrictions run with
the land such that any subsequent owner is bound by the same
restrictions. The LUCs are to remain in place until EPA and MPCA
determine that the concentrations of hazardous substances in the soils
have been reduced to levels that allow for a less restrictive use.

Cleanup Goals

    There is no cleanup associated with the remedy for OU2. Surface
soils that posed unacceptable commercial/industrial risk levels were
excavated and disposed of off-site during removal actions prior to
implementation of the LUCs at the Site.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M)

    The Navy, as the lead agency, is responsible for conducting routine
inspections to ensure that LUCs are maintained and enforced. The Navy
is responsible for reporting the results of the inspections and any
breach of the LUCs to the MPCA and EPA.

Five-Year Review (FYR)

    The Navy conducted a FYR at the Site in October 2013. The 2013 FYR
concluded that the remedy at NIROP for OU2 is protective of human
health and the environment. The FYR calls for the Navy to continue
long-term stewardship to ensure that the LUCs are maintained.

Future Redevelopment

    Plans are currently underway to redevelop the NIROP Site into a
commercial office/warehouse complex. This planned redevelopment is
consistent with the existing Land Use designation for the site. The
three parties to the FFA concur that the delisting of OU2 from the NPL
would facilitate this redevelopment effort and allow OU2 to become
eligible for State and Federal Brownfields funding. Superfund NPL site
property is not eligible for Federal Brownfields funding.
    A developer has enrolled the NIROP site and certain adjacent land
into MPCA's Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup (VIC) program. In
conjunction with the redevelopment of the NIROP Superfund Site, any
additional investigations will be conducted under the oversight and
direction of MPCA's VIC program.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket, which EPA relied on for
recommendation of the partial deletion of this Site from the NPL, are
available to the public in the information repositories and at
www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket include maps which
identify the specific parcels of land that are included in this
document (i.e., OU2).

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

    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that portions of 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
no further action is appropriate.

V. Deletion Action

    EPA, with concurrence of the State of Minnesota through the MPCA,
has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA,
other than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been
completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting OU2 of the NIROP Superfund Site
from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is proceeding without prior publication. This action will
be effective August 29, 2014 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
July 30, 2014. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final notice of partial deletion before the effective date of
the partial 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 partially 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 waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: June 12, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator Region 5.

    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is
amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; 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--[Amended]

0
2. Table 2 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the entry
for ``MN,'' ``Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant,'' ``Fridley'' to
read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

* * * * *

                                       Table 2--Federal Facilities Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 St                          Site name                City/County              (Notes) (a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
MN..................................  Naval Industrial         Fridley                   P
                                       Reserve Ordnance Plant.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    Notes:
    (a) A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need
not be greater than or equal to 28.50).
* * * * *
    P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-15255 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37175]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13603]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0136; FRL-9947-49-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Sulfur Dioxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide (SO2)
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ELT Minneapolis, LLC's River Road
Industrial Center located in Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota. The
revision, submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on
February 24, 2016, updates information updates information to reflect
both administrative and equipment changes at the facility. The name of
the facility has changed to BAE Technology Center. The revision will
result in a significant decrease in SO2 emissions and will
support the continued attainment and maintenance of the SO2
national ambient air quality standard in the Twin Cities area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0136 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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. 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving Minnesota's SO2 SIP submittal as
a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views
this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If EPA does not receive adverse comments in response
to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives
adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and will
address all public comments received in a subsequent final rule based
on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period.
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at
this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule, and if that provision
can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final
those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse
comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: May 31, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2016-13603 Filed 6-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P