Proposed Rules. Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period

47,025 words·~214 min read·/register/2007/08/01/07-3746

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26710; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-147-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive

(AD)for all Boeing Model 757 airplanes. The original NPRM would have required revising the Airworthiness Limitations

(AWLs)section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating new limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 requirements. The original NPRM also would have required the initial inspection of certain repetitive inspections specified in the AWLs to phase-in those inspections, and repair if necessary. The original NPRM resulted from a design review of the fuel tank systems. This action revises the original NPRM by aligning the compliance time for revising the AWLs section with the compliance date of the special maintenance program requirements, updating the listing of applicable airplane maintenance manuals in Appendix 1, and clarifying certain actions. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM 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 a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane. DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by August 27, 2007. ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on this supplemental NPRM. • *DOT Docket Web site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Government-wide rulemaking Web site:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *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. • *Fax:*

(202)493-2251. • *Hand Delivery:* Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207, for service information identified in this proposed AD. 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

(425)917-6590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number “Docket No. FAA-2006-26710; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-147-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in light of those comments. We will post all comments submitted, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this supplemental NPRM. Using the search function of that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Examining the Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov,* or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Operations office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is located on the ground level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the Docket Management System receives them. Discussion We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM)for an AD (the “original NPRM”) for all Boeing Model 757 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on January 3, 2007 (72 FR 50). The original NPRM proposed to require revising the Airworthiness Limitations

(AWLs)section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating new limitations for fuel tank systems to satisfy Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 88 (SFAR 88) requirements. The original NPRM also proposed to require the initial inspection of certain repetitive inspections specified in the AWLs to phase-in those inspections, and repair if necessary. Explanation of Change in Compliance Time In most ADs, we adopt a compliance time allowing a specified amount of time after the AD's effective date. In this case, however, we have already issued regulations that require operators to revise their maintenance/inspection programs to address fuel tank safety issues. The compliance date for these regulations is December 16, 2008. To provide for efficient and coordinated implementation of these regulations and this supplemental NPRM, we are using this same compliance date in this supplemental NPRM, instead of the 18-month compliance time recommended by Boeing. Therefore, we have revised the compliance time in paragraph

(g)from “within 18 months after the effective date of this AD” to a compliance date of “no later than December 16, 2008.” Comments We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM. Request To Revise Note 1 Boeing requests that the Note 1 of the original NPRM be revised from “* * * the operator must request approval for revision * * *” to “* * * the operator must request approval for deviation from * * * .” Boeing states that, as written, Note 1 would result in modifications, alternations, or repairs being incorporated into the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data

(MPD)Document D622N001-9, Revision March 2006 (referred to in the original NPRM as the appropriate source of service information) that are outside of its configuration definition data and responsibility. Boeing also states that the MPD document is intended to reflect the Boeing 757 type design as defined only by Boeing data. We partially agree. We do not agree with Boeing's suggested change. We find that Boeing is misinterpreting the intent of Note 1, and that clarification is necessary. The sentence in question states, “In this situation, * * * the operator must request approval for revision to the airworthiness limitations

(AWLs)in the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data

(MPD)Document D622N001-9 * * * .” The term “revision” refers to the “airworthiness limitations,” not to the MPD document. The modification, alteration, or repair would affect only a few airplanes, so a revision to the MPD document, which would affect the whole fleet, would not be appropriate. However, we do agree with Boeing that a revision to the MPD document may not be necessary. We have determined that operators also can request approval for revision to the AWLs in the MPD document according to paragraph

(i)of this supplemental NPRM. Therefore, we have revised Note 1 accordingly. Request To Add Procedures of Boeing 757 MPD Document Boeing requests that the original NPRM be revised to contain the procedures specified in Section 9 of Boeing 757 MPD Document D622N001-9 or an approved equivalent AWL/Certification Maintenance Requirement

(CMR)document, rather than referring to the MPD document as the source for the procedures. Boeing states that it may move Section 9 (airworthiness limitation section) out of the Boeing 757 MPD document, and thus the AD may need to be revised. We do not agree. We have confirmed with Boeing that it has no immediate plans to change the Boeing 757 MPD document. Therefore, until the Boeing 757 MPD Document D622N001-9 is revised, we consider it appropriate that this supplemental NPRM refer to it as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishing the proposed actions. We might consider issuing additional rulemaking or approving alternative methods of compliance to address that concern in the future. We have not changed the supplemental NPRM regarding this issue. Request To Extend Compliance Time United Parcel Service

(UPS)requests that, for low cycle operators (less than 800 flight cycles per year), the compliance time for the initial inspections in paragraph

(h)of the original NPRM be extended from “10 years or 36,000 flight cycles” to “16 years

(8C)or 36,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first.” UPS states that this will not penalize low-utilization operators. UPS states that it has tank entries approximately every 8 years, and that 16 years lines up better with its maintenance program. UPS also states that a compliance time of 10 years would significantly increase its financial burden. UPS did not submit any data with its comment. We do not agree. In developing the compliance time for the original NPRM, we considered not only the risk of creating an ignition source in the tank, but we also considered the practical aspect of accomplishing the proposed inspections within a period of time that corresponds to the major structural inspections or fuel tank entries to limit the impact on operators. With UPS's tank entries occurring approximately every 8 years, the 36,000 total flight cycles or 120-month proposed compliance time would allow UPS's entire fleet to be inspected during scheduled maintenance with an additional 2 years to allow for some scheduling flexibility. However, paragraph

(i)of the supplemental NPRM provides operators the opportunity to request an extension of the compliance time if data are presented to justify such an extension. Request To Include an Additional Airworthiness Limitation Boeing requests that we revise paragraph

(h)of the original NPRM for completeness to include Airworthiness Limitation 28-AWL-25 (Lightning and Fault Current Protection—Motor Operated Valve Actuator). Boeing notes this AWL was added to Section 9 of the Boeing 757 MPD Document D622N001-9 in October 2006. We agree with Boeing's intent; however, we do not agree with including Airworthiness Limitation 28-AWL-25 in this supplemental NPRM. We are considering issuing a separate rulemaking action that would propose to require installation of a new actuator and inspections in accordance with Airworthiness Limitation 28-AWL-25. Request To Revise Numbering of Notes Boeing requests that Notes 2 and 3 of the original NPRM be renumbered. Boeing believes that there are only two notes as part of Table 1 of the original NPRM, and that the notes were incorrectly numbered. We understand Boeing's concern; however, we do not agree that the notes need to be renumbered. There are total of three notes in the supplemental NPRM. All three notes are correctly numbered. In all ADs, notes are numbered sequentially in the regulatory text. Request To Revise Appendix 1 Boeing requests that Appendix 1 of the original NPRM be revised to include missing task titles and numbers. Boeing provided no justification. We partially agree. Since we issued the original NPRM, the modifications of the motor operated valve actuator have been approved, and the associated airplane maintenance manual

(AMM)changes have been released. Therefore, we agree with Boeing to revise columns “Task Title” and “Task #,” as applicable, of Appendix 1 of the supplemental NPRM to include the latest information specified in the AMM that is associated with design changes of the fuel tank system changes. However, we do not agree with Boeing to add task titles for the component maintenance manuals (CMM), because the AWLs cover the entire CMM, not just specific tasks. Explanation of Other Changes to Original NPRM We have revised paragraph

(g)of this supplemental NPRM to clarify that the exception refers to the “initial inspections” specified in Table 1 of this AD rather than the “inspections.” We have revised paragraph

(h)of this supplemental NPRM to allow the use of later revisions of the MPD. FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM Some of the changes discussed above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM. Costs of Compliance There are about 990 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD. Estimated Costs Action Work hours Average labor rate per hour Cost per airplane Number of U.S.-registered airplanes Fleet cost Revision of AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness 8 $80 $640 639 $408,960 Detailed and special detailed inspections 8 80 640 639 408,960 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the 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 supplemental NPRM 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, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA)amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): **Boeing** : Docket No. FAA-2006-26710; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-147-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by August 27, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to all Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, -200CB, and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category. Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new inspections and maintenance actions. Compliance with these limitations is required by 14 CFR 43.16 and 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 43.16 and 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for revision to the airworthiness limitations

(AWLs)in the Boeing 757 Maintenance Planning Data

(MPD)Document D622N001-9 according to paragraph

(g)or

(i)of this AD. 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 a fuel tank explosion 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 “Revision March 2006 of the MPD” as used in this AD, means Section 9 of Boeing 757 MPD Document D622N001-9, Revision March 2006. Revision of AWLs Section

(g)No later than December 16, 2008, revise the AWLs section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating the information in the sections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(3) of this AD into the MPD, except that the initial inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD must be done at the compliance times specified in Table 1. Accomplishing the revision in accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

(1)Section E., “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEMS,” of Revision March 2006 of the MPD.

(2)Section F., “PAGE FORMAT: SYSTEMS AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS,” of Revision March 2006 of the MPD.

(3)Section G., “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEM AWLs” of Revision March 2006 of the MPD. Initial Inspections and Repair

(h)Do the inspections specified in Table 1 of this AD and repair any discrepancy, in accordance with Section G., “AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS—FUEL SYSTEM AWLs,” of Revision March 2006 of the MPD. The repair must be done before further flight. Accomplishing the actions in accordance with a later revision of the MPD is an acceptable method of compliance if the revision is approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA. Table 1.—Initial Inspections Airworthiness limitations Description Compliance time (whichever occurs later) Threshold Grace period

(1)28-AWL-01 A detailed inspection of external wires over the center fuel tank for damaged clamps, wire chafing, and wire bundles in contact with the surface of the center fuel tank 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 Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.

(2)28-AWL-03 A special detailed inspection of the lightning shield to ground termination on the out-of-tank fuel quantity indicating system to verify functional integrity 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 Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

(3)28-AWL-14 A special detailed inspection of the fault current bond of the fueling shutoff valve actuator of the center wing tank to verify electrical bond 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 Within 60 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.” Note 3: For the purposes of this AD, a special detailed inspection is: “An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. The examination is likely to make extensive use of specialized inspection techniques and/or equipment. Intricate cleaning and substantial access or disassembly procedure may be required.” Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (i)(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. Appendix 1. Fuel Tank System Airworthiness Limitations—Applicable Maintenance Manuals Airworthiness limitation

(AWL)Airworthiness limitation instruction (ALI)/critical design configuration control limitation (CDCCL) ATA section or component maintenance manual

(CMM)document Task title Task # 28-AWL-01 ALI Airplane Maintenance Manual

(AMM)28-11-00/601 External Wires Over the Center Tank Inspection 28-11-00-206-221 28-AWL-02 CDCCL Standard Wiring Practices Manual

(SWPM)20-10-11 Wiring Assembly and Installation Configuration 28-AWL-03 ALI AMM 20-55-54/601 Fuel Quantity Indicating System

(FQIS)Connectors—Inspection/ Check 20-55-54-286-001 28-AWL-04 CDCCL SWPM 20-10-15 Assembly of Shield Ground Wires 28-AWL-05 CDCCL SWPM 20-10-11 Wiring Assembly and Installation Configuration 28-AWL-06 CDCCL CMM 28-41-68 Revision 4 or subsequent revisions 28-AWL-07 CDCCL CMM 28-40-56, Revision 4; CMM 28-40-62, revision 3; CMM 28-40-59, revision 5; or subsequent revisions 28-AWL-08 CDCCL SWPM 20-14-12 Repair of FQIS Wire Harness AMM 28-41-09/401 Install the Tank Wiring Harness Varies with configuration 28-AWL-09 CDCCL AMM 29-11-26/401 Install the Heat Exchanger 29-11-26-404-012 28-AWL-10 CDCCL AMM 28-22-07/401 Install the Fuel Line and Fittings 28-22-07-404-005 28-AWL-11 CDCCL 28-AWL-12 CDCCL CMM 28-22-08, revision 3; CMM 28-20-02, revision 9; or subsequent revisions 28-AWL-13 CDCCL AMM 28-22-03/401 Install the Fuel Boost Pump Assembly or the Fuel Override Pump Assembly 28-22-03-404-007 28-AWL-14 ALI AMM 28-21-02/401 Fueling Shutoff Valve Resistance Check 28-21-02-764-047 28-AWL-15 CDCCL AMM 28-21-02/401 Install the Fueling Shutoff Valve 28-21-02-404-019 AMM 28-21-12/401 Install the Actuator of the Fueling Shutoff Valve 28-21-12-404-015 28-AWL-16 CDCCL AMM 28-11-01/401 Install the Main Tank Access Door 28-11-01-404-014 AMM 28-11-02/401 Install the Center Tank Access Door 28-11-02-404-019 AMM 28-11-03/401 Install the Surge Tank Access Door 28-11-03-404-008 28-AWL-17 CDCCL AMM 28-11-03/401 Install the Surge Tank Access Door 28-11-03-404-008 AMM 28-13-04/201 Install the Pressure Relief Valve 28-13-04-402-014 28-AWL-18 CDCCL AMM 28-11-03/401 Install the Surge Tank Access Door 28-11-03-404-008 AMM 28-13-05/401 Install the Housing of the Vent Flame Arrestor 28-13-05-404-004 28-AWL-19 CDCCL Fault Isolation Manual

(FIM)28-22-00/101 Engine Fuel Feed System—Fault Isolation 28-AWL-20 ALI AMM 28-22-00/501 Center Tank Fuel Override Pump Auto Shutoff Functional Test 28-22-00-725-507 System Test—Engine Fuel Feed System Varies with Configuration 28-AWL-21 ALI AMM 28-22-00/501 System Test—Engine Fuel Feed System Varies with Configuration 28-AWL-22 CDCCL AMM 28-41-24/401 Densitometer Hot Short Protector Installation 28-41-24-404-006 28-AWL-23 CDCCL AMM 28-22-01/401 Install the Adapter Shaft of the Engine Fuel Shutoff Valve (Spar Valve) 28-22-01-404-19 AMM 28-22-02/401 Install the Engine Fuel Crossfeed Adapter Shaft 28-22-02-404-041 AMM 28-22-11/401 Install the Actuator of the Engine Fuel Shutoff Valve (Spar Valve) 28-22-11-404-007 AMM 28-22-12/401 Install the Actuator of the Engine Fuel Crossfeed Valve 28-22-12-404-024 AMM 28-26-01/401 Install the Adapter Shaft for the Defuel Valve 28-26-01-404-035 AMM 28-26-02/401 Install the Defueling Valve Actuator 28-26-02-404-015 28-AWL-24 CDCCL CMM 28-20-21 28-AWL-25 ALI AMM 28-22-01/401 Install the Adapter Shaft of the Engine Fuel Shutoff Valve (Spar Valve) 28-22-01-404-19 AMM 28-022-02/401 Install the Engine Fuel Crossfeed Adapter Shaft 28-22-02-404-041 AMM 28-22-11/401 Install the Actuator of the Engine Fuel Shutoff Valve (Spar Valve) 28-22-11-404-007 AMM 28-22-12/401 Install the Actuator of the Engine Fuel Crossfeed Valve 28-22-12-404-024 AMM 28-26-01/401 Install the Adapter Shaft for the Defuel Valve 28-26-01-404-035 AMM 28-26-02/401 Install the Defueling Valve Actuator 28-26-02-404-015 AMM 28-25-11/401 Install the Actuator of the APU Fuel Shutoff Valve 28-25-11-404-010 28-AWL-26 ALI AMM 28-22-00/501 System Test—Engine Fuel Feed System Varies with Configuration Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 25, 2007. Stephen P. Boyd, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-14867 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2007-28645; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-059-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive

(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: This Airworthiness Directive

(202)493-2251. • *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:* U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone

(800)647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4119; fax:

(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2007-28645; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-059-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Emergency Airworthiness (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: This Airworthiness Directive

(AD)results from one report about imperfect locking on ground of the upper access door opening interior handle which has enabled its opening without actuating unlocking knob. If not corrected an inadvertent action on the handle without actuating the unlocking knob could lead to a door opening. Investigations identified the unsafe condition resulting from interference between the window trim panel and the handle locking mechanism. Requirements of this AD are first, check for proper operation the locking handle and secondly modification of the window trim panel. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EADS SOCATA has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin TBM Aircraft SB 70-150, dated May 2007. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 23 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $5 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,795, or $165 per product. 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 determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the 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 proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **EADS SOCATA:** Docket No. FAA-2007-28645; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-059-AD. Comments Due Date

(a)We must receive comments by August 31, 2007. Affected ADs

(b)None. Applicability

(c)This AD applies to TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 1 through 9, 11 through 17, 19 through 22, 25 through 27, 29 through 31, 33 and 34, 38, 46, and 49, that are:

(1)Certificated in any category;

(2)Not equipped with modification No. MOD70-019-25; and

(3)Equipped with an interior handle unlocking device through push-button. Subject

(d)Air Transport Association of America

(ATA)Code 52: Doors. Reason

(e)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information

(MCAI)states: This Airworthiness Directive

(f)Unless already done, do the following actions:

(1)Before each flight after the effective date of this AD until the actions of paragraph (f)(2) of this AD have been done, check the handle locking using paragraph A of the accomplishment instructions in EADS SOCATA Mandatory TBM Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 70-150, dated May 2007. If any discrepancy is found, do the following before further flight until the modification in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD is done:

(i)Fabricate a placard using letter at least 1/8 inches in height with the words “FLIGHT ALLOWED WITH ONLY THE FLIGHT DECK SEATS OCCUPIED.”

(ii)Install this placard on the instrument panel within clear view of the pilot.

(iii)The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may do both the pre-flight checks and the placard requirements of this AD. Make an entry in the aircraft records showing compliance with this portion of the AD following section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).

(2)Within the next 12 months after the effective date of this AD modify the window trim panel using paragraph B of the accomplishment instructions in EADS SOCATA Mandatory TBM Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 70-150, dated May 2007. This modification terminates the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions

(g)The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:

(816)329-4119; fax:

(816)329-4090. 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.

(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information

(h)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA)Emergency AD No: 2007-0172-E, dated June 15, 2007; and EADS SOCATA Mandatory TBM Aircraft Service Bulletin SB 70-150, dated May 2007, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 26, 2007. James E. Jackson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E7-14857 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0401; FRL-8448-3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; State Implementation Plan Revision To Implement the Clean Air Interstate Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan

(SIP)submitted on March 30, 2007. This revision addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005 and subsequently revised on April 28, 2006 and December 13, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the SIP revision fully implements the CAIR requirements for Massachusetts. Therefore, as a consequence of the SIP approval, EPA will also withdraw the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (CAIR FIP) concerning NO X ozone-season emissions for Massachusetts. The CAIR FIPs for all States in the CAIR region were promulgated on April 28, 2006 and subsequently revised on December 13, 2006. In the SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve, Massachusetts would meet CAIR requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program addressing NO X ozone-season emissions. Massachusetts's SIP revision is based on EPA's model CAIR NO X ozone season rule and is in most respects substantively identical to that model rule. The Massachusetts CAIR program has two major substantive differences from that model rule (expanded applicability, and a different methodology for allocating NO X allowances), both of which are consistent with the flexibility allowed under CAIR for state participation in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program. The SIP revision complies with the statutory and regulatory requirements for approval of a CAIR NO X ozone-season program. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0401, by one of the following methods: 1. *www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *arnold.anne@epa.gov.* 3. *Fax:*

(617)918-0047. 4. *Mail:* “FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0401”, Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. 5. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. *Instructions:* Direct your comments to Docket ID No. “FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0401”. 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 through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The *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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *www.regulations.gov* , your e-mail 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 and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at *http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm* . *Docket:* All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the *www.regulations.gov* index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. In addition to publicly available docket materials available electronically in *www.regulations.gov* , the hard copy of these materials, including the state submittal and EPA's technical support document, is available at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning today's proposal, please contact Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone number

(617)918-1684, fax number

(617)918-0684, e-mail *simcox.alison@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take? II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? III. What are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? IV. What are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals? V. Analysis of Massachusetts's CAIR SIP Submittal A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs C. Applicability Provisions for non-EGU NO X SIP Call Sources D. NO X Allowance Allocations E. Individual Opt-in Units VI. Proposed Action VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take? EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Massachusetts's SIP, submitted on March 30, 2007. This SIP revision includes a new regulation, 310 CMR 7.32, “Massachusetts Clean Air Interstate Rule,” and amendments to existing regulation 310 CMR 7.28, “NO X Allowance Trading Program.” In its SIP revision, Massachusetts would meet CAIR requirements by requiring certain electric generating units

(EGUs)to participate in the EPA-administered State CAIR cap-and-trade program addressing NO X ozone-season emissions. EPA is proposing to determine that the Massachusetts SIP as revised will meet the applicable requirements of CAIR. Any final action approving the SIP will be taken by the Regional Administrator for Region 1. As a consequence of the SIP Approval, the Administrator of EPA will also issue a final rule to withdraw the FIP concerning NO X ozone-season emissions for Massachusetts. This action will delete and reserve 40 CFR 52.1140. The withdrawal of the CAIR FIP for Massachusetts is a conforming amendment that must be made once the SIP is approved because EPA's authority to issue the FIP was premised on a deficiency in the SIP for Massachusetts. Once the SIP is fully approved, EPA no longer has authority for the FIP. Thus, EPA will not have the option of maintaining the FIP following the full SIP approval. Accordingly, EPA does not intend to offer an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment on the withdrawal of the FIP. II. What Is the Regulatory History of the CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? The Clean Air Interstate Rule

(CAIR)was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this rule, EPA determined that 28 States and the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM 2.5 ) and/or 8-hour ozone in downwind States in the eastern part of the country. As a result, EPA required those upwind States to revise their SIPs to include control measures that reduce emissions of SO 2 , which is a precursor to PM 2.5 formation, and/or NO X , which is a precursor to both ozone and PM 2.5 formation. For jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind PM 2.5 nonattainment, CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO 2 and annual State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO X . Similarly, for jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide emission reduction requirements for NO X for the ozone season (May 1st to September 30th). Under CAIR, States may implement these reduction requirements by participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other control measures. CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA)with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective on May 25, 2005, that the States had failed to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000, 3 years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. These findings started a 2-year clock for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan

(FIP)to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). Under CAA section 110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP anytime after such findings are made and must do so within two years unless a SIP revision correcting the deficiency is approved by EPA before the FIP is promulgated. On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all States covered by CAIR in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are achieved on schedule. Each CAIR State is subject to the FIPs until the State fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the requirements of CAIR. The CAIR FIPs require EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs, as appropriate. The CAIR FIP SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements as, and are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs. The integration of the FIP and SIP trading programs means that these trading programs will work together to create effectively a single trading program for each regulated pollutant (SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season) in all States covered by the CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for that pollutant. The CAIR FIPs also allow States to submit abbreviated SIP revisions that, if approved by EPA, will automatically replace or supplement certain CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the methodology for allocating NO X allowances to sources in the State), while the CAIR FIP remains in place for all other provisions. On April 28, 2006, EPA published two additional CAIR-related final rules that added the States of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of States subject to CAIR for PM 2.5 and announced EPA's final decisions on reconsideration of five issues, without making any substantive changes to the CAIR requirements. III. What are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs? CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO 2 and NO X and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase of NO X reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014, while the first phase of SO 2 reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both NO X and SO 2 starts in 2015 and continues thereafter. CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either:

(1)Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs; or

(2)adopting other control measures of the State's choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with the applicable State SO 2 and NO X budgets. The May 12, 2005 and April 28, 2006 CAIR rules provide model rules that States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. With two exceptions, only States that choose to meet the requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One exception is for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered trading programs. The other exception is for States that include all non-EGUs from their NO X SIP Call trading programs in their CAIR NO X ozone season trading programs. IV. What are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals? States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures they will use to meet the requirements of CAIR. EPA anticipates that most States will choose to meet the CAIR requirements by selecting an option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR cap-and-trade programs. For such States, EPA has provided two approaches for submitting and obtaining approval for CAIR SIP revisions. States may submit full SIP revisions that adopt the model CAIR cap-and-trade rules. If approved, these SIP revisions will fully replace the CAIR FIPs. Alternatively, States may submit abbreviated SIP revisions. These SIP revisions will not replace the CAIR FIPs; however, the CAIR FIPs provide that, when approved, the provisions in these abbreviated SIP revisions will be used instead of or in conjunction with, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs (e.g., the NO X allowance allocation methodology). A State submitting a full SIP revision may either adopt regulations that are substantively identical to the model rules or incorporate by reference the model rules. CAIR provides that States may only make limited changes to the model rules if the States want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. A full SIP revision may change the model rules only by altering their applicability and allowance allocation provisions to: 1. Include NO X SIP Call trading sources that are not EGUs under CAIR in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program; 2. Provide for State allocation of NO X annual or ozone season allowances using a methodology chosen by the State; 3. Provide for State allocation of NO X annual allowances from the compliance supplement pool

(CSP)using the State's choice of allowed, alternative methodologies; or 4. Allow units that are not otherwise CAIR units to opt individually into the CAIR SO 2 , NO X annual, or NO X ozone season trading programs under the opt-in provisions in the model rules. An approved CAIR full SIP revision addressing EGUs' SO 2 , NO X annual, or NO X ozone season emissions will replace the CAIR FIP for that State for the respective EGU emissions. V. Analysis of Massachusetts's CAIR SIP Submittal A summary of EPA's review of Massachusetts's CAIR program is given below. Additional details regarding requirements of Massachusetts's 310 CMR 7.32 regulation and EPA's evaluation of this regulation are detailed in a memorandum dated July 16, 2007, entitled “Technical Support Document

(TSD)for revisions to the Massachusetts SIP: 310 CMR 7.32 (“Massachusetts Clean Air Interstate Rule”).” The TSD and Massachusetts's CAIR SIP submittal are available in the docket supporting this action. A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations The CAIR NO X annual and ozone season budgets were developed from historical heat input data for EGUs. Using these data, EPA calculated annual and ozone season regional heat input values, which were multiplied by 0.15 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/mmBtu), for phase 1 of the CAIR program (2009-2014) and by 0.125 lb/mmBtu, for phase 2 of the CAIR program (2015 and thereafter) to obtain regional NO X budgets for 2009-2014 and for 2015 and thereafter, respectively. EPA derived the State NO X annual and ozone season budgets from the regional budgets using State heat input data adjusted by fuel factors. Massachusetts, however, is only required to participate in the CAIR NO X ozone-season program, not the CAIR NO X annual or SO 2 trading programs. Therefore, only CAIR NO X ozone-season budgets apply to the Massachusetts CAIR program. In today's action, EPA is proposing approval of Massachusetts's SIP revision at 310 CMR 7.32. This SIP revision adopts the budgets established for the State in CAIR, *i.e.* , 7,551 tons of NO X ozone-season emissions for CAIR phase 1 and 6,293 tons for CAIR phase 2, plus an additional 363 tons of NO X ozone-season emissions for both phases 1 and 2 to account for NO X emissions from “non-EGU” units from the Massachusetts NO X SIP Call trading program (see section V.B. below). The total NO X ozone-season budget is therefore 7,914 tons of NO X ozone-season emissions for CAIR phase 1 and 6,656 tons for CAIR phase 2. Massachusetts's SIP revision sets this budget as the total number of allowances (with each allowance authorizing one ton of NO X ozone-season emissions) available for allocation for each year under the EPA-administered CAIR cap-and-trade program. B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs The CAIR NO X annual and ozone-season model trading rules both largely mirror the structure of the NO X SIP Call model trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the provisions of the NO X annual and ozone-season model rules are similar, there are some differences. For example, the NO X ozone season model rule reflects the fact that the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program replaces the NO X SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated with the NO X SIP Call program. The NO X ozone season model rule provides incentives for early emissions reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009 NO X SIP Call allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NO X ozone-season trading program. In addition, States have the option of continuing to meet their NO X SIP Call requirement by participating in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program and including all their NO X SIP Call trading sources in that program. Massachusetts has decided to exercise the option of including all its NO X SIP Call units in its State CAIR program. Therefore, the Massachusetts CAIR SIP revision includes amendments to the Massachusetts NO X SIP Call trading program (310 CMR 7.28) such that the NO X SIP Call trading program applies for the control periods from 2003 through 2008, but is then superseded by the Massachusetts CAIR program (310 CMR 7.32) beginning with the control period in 2009. EPA also used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are virtually identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made to account for federal rather than state implementation. The CAIR model SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to work together as integrated SO 2 , NO X annual, and NO X ozone season trading programs. In the SIP revision, Massachusetts chooses to implement its CAIR budgets by requiring EGUs (as well as “non-EGUs” from its NO X SIP Call trading program, as discussed below) to participate in EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for NO X ozone-season emissions. Massachusetts has adopted a full SIP revision that adopts, with certain allowed changes discussed below, the CAIR model cap-and-trade rules for NO X ozone-season emissions. C. Applicability Provisions for non-EGU NO X SIP Call Sources In general, the CAIR model trading rules apply to any stationary, fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion turbine serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990 or the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale. States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NO X ozone season program only, those units in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR (herein called “non-EGUs”). EPA advises States exercising this option to add the applicability provisions in the State's NO X SIP Call trading rule for “non-EGUs” to the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 96.304 in order to include in the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program all units required to be in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program that are not already included under 40 CFR 96.304. Under this option, the CAIR NO X ozone-season program must cover all large industrial boilers and combustion turbines, as well as any small EGUs (i.e. units serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less) that the State currently requires to be in the NO X SIP Call trading program. Massachusetts has chosen to expand the applicability provisions of the CAIR NO X ozone season trading program to include all units in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program. Units in the Massachusetts NO X SIP Call trading program include units that burn more than 50-percent fossil fuel and that have a maximum heat-input capacity of 250 million British thermal units (MMBtu) or more, or serve a generator with a nameplate capacity of 15 MWe or more. These units are included in the Massachusetts NO X SIP Call trading program whether or not they produce electricity for sale, and, as noted above, will be included in the Massachusetts CAIR program beginning with the control period in 2009. EPA has determined that Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.32 includes the allowable CAIR applicability provisions relating to adding all NO X SIP Call trading program units to the Massachusetts CAIR NO X ozone season program. D. NO X Allowance Allocations *Deadlines:* There is one technical flaw in the SIP revision, but EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision despite this flaw. CAIR requires states to submit to EPA the initial allocations for EGUs that started operation before 2001 by October 31, 2006. Massachusetts's proposed SIP revision does not meet this requirement, nor did the state submit those allocations by this date. However, the purpose of this date was to allow EPA sufficient time to process the allocations data. EPA now has the allocations, and no outside party was prejudiced by Massachusetts's failure to meet this date. The TSD associated with this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking explains this issue and EPA's rationale for proposing to approve the SIP revision despite this technical flaw. *NO* X *allowance-allocation methodology:* Under the NO X allowance-allocation methodology in the CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIP, NO X annual and ozone-season allowances are allocated to units that have operated for five years (i.e., “existing units”), based on heat input data from a three-year period that are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from which units without five years of operation are allocated allowances based on the units' prior year emissions. States may establish in their SIP submissions a different NO X allowance-allocation methodology that will be used to allocate allowances to sources in the States if certain requirements are met concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances allocated for each control period. In adopting alternative NO X allowance-allocation methodologies, States have flexibility with regard to: 1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be distributed for free or auctioned; 2. The frequency of allocations; 3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed, for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal output; and 4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size. Massachusetts has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO X ozone-season model trading rule concerning allowance allocations with its own methodology. Massachusetts's 310 CMR 7.32 distributes NO X ozone-season allowances based upon historical electric and thermal output, rather than heat input. Massachusetts also provides a percentage of allowances for Public Benefit and new unit set-asides.

(1)What Types of Set-Asides are Included in Massachusetts CAIR? Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.32 includes both a Public Benefit set-aside

(PBSA)to encourage Energy Efficiency Projects

(EEPs)and Renewable Energy Projects (REPs), and a new unit set-aside to allow for addition of new units. Both of these types of set-asides were included in the State's NO X SIP Call trading program. Massachusetts has set a new unit set-aside at 5 percent of the State's CAIR budget for both phases of the CAIR program. Therefore, the new unit set-aside includes 396 CAIR NO X ozone-season allowances during CAIR phase 1 (2009-2014), and 333 allowances during CAIR phase 2 (2015 and thereafter). Massachusetts has set a PBSA at 10 percent of the State's CAIR budget for both phases of the CAIR program. Therefore, the PBSA includes 791 CAIR NO X ozone-season allowances during CAIR phase 1 (2009-2014), and 666 allowances during CAIR phase 2 (2015 and thereafter).

(2)Banking and Transferring of Set-Asides The Massachusetts CAIR SIP establishes an account for any unallocated PBSA or new unit set-aside allowances so that these can be allocated in future years. This is similar to the account established under the State's NO X SIP Call trading program. If the number of banked set-aside allowances is 10 percent or more of the total Massachusetts CAIR budget after allocations and compliance deductions have been made for a given year, the State will allocate allowances that exceed 5 percent of the State's CAIR budget to existing CAIR NO X ozone-season units using the allocation methodology described below. If Massachusetts approves the allocation of more allowances for EEPs and REPs than are available in the PBSA, Massachusetts will allow transfer of unallocated allowances from the new unit set-aside to the PBSA. However, allowances may not be transferred from the PBSA to the new unit set-aside.

(3)Methodology for Allocating CAIR Allowances Massachusetts has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR NO X ozone-season model trading rule concerning allowance allocations with a methodology similar to that used in the Massachusetts NO X SIP Call trading program. This methodology, which is based on energy output, allocates allowances to existing units and, to the extent possible, to new units based on their steam and/or electricity output. More details on Massachusetts's methodology for allocating CAIR allowances can be found in the TSD associated with this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

(4)Massachusetts CAIR Permits and Reporting Requirements The Massachusetts CAIR SIP includes most of the permitting provisions of the CAIR model rule. Massachusetts, however, has modified the rule as it applies to collection of output data and also requires all Massachusetts CAIR units to have Massachusetts CAIR permits. Under the CAIR model rule, facilities that are subject to the Acid Rain Program or the CAIR NO X and SO 2 annual trading programs must report emissions data year-round, but facilities that are only subject to the NO X ozone-season trading program need only submit NO X emission data to the State during the ozone season. As noted above, Massachusetts is only required to participate in the CAIR NO X ozone- season program. However, under Massachusetts's CAIR NO X ozone season allowance trading program, all units recording NO X emissions data with Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems

(CEMS)are required to submit quarterly data emission reports year-round. Because of the importance to Massachusetts of obtaining emissions data for air-quality planning efforts related to EPA's programs to address Regional Haze and Particulate Matter (PM), which are both year-round air-quality issues, Massachusetts has decided to require that all of the State's CAIR units with CEMS report NO X emissions to the State on a year-round basis. Massachusetts will not require units without CEMS to report emissions on a year-round basis. EPA has determined that these modifications of the CAIR NO X ozone-season trading rule in regard to collection of output data and CAIR permits are acceptable. E. Individual Opt-in Units The opt-in provisions of the CAIR SIP model trading rules allow certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program to participate voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading program. A non-EGU may opt into one or more of the CAIR trading programs. In order to qualify to opt into a CAIR trading program, a unit must vent all emissions through a stack and be able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The owners and operators seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading program must apply for a CAIR opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated allowances, and must meet the same allowance-holding and emissions monitoring and reporting requirements as other units subject to the CAIR trading program. The opt-in provisions provide for two methodologies for allocating allowances for opt-in units, one methodology that applies to opt-in units in general and a second methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units that the owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015. States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions. States may adopt the CAIR opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them but exclude one of the methodologies for allocating allowances. States may also decline to adopt the opt-in provisions at all. The Massachusetts CAIR SIP does not include opt-in provisions because the State has chosen to allocate CAIR allowances using an energy-output methodology that cannot be used for opt-in sources under the model CAIR NO X ozone-season trading rule. The Massachusetts NO X SIP Call trading program (310 CMR 7.28), however, does allow for opt-in sources (although no sources have opted into this program to date). Therefore, sources that wish to be part of the Massachusetts CAIR program can take advantage of the opt-in provisions of the State's NO X SIP Call program until the end of 2008. Beginning with the 2009 ozone season, the NO X SIP Call program will be replaced by the State's CAIR Program, and no further opt-in units will be allowed. VI. Proposed Action EPA is proposing to approve Massachusetts's full CAIR SIP revision submitted on March 30, 2007, including regulations 310 CMR 7.32 (“Massachusetts CAIR”) and amendments to 310 CMR 7.28 (“NO X Allocation Trading Program”). Under this SIP revision, Massachusetts is choosing to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade program for NO X ozone-season emissions. The SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(aa) with regard to NO X ozone-season emissions. EPA is proposing to determine that the SIP as revised will meet the requirements of CAIR. As a consequence of the SIP approval, the Administrator of EPA will also issue, without providing an opportunity for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public comment, a final rule to withdraw the CAIR FIP concerning NO X ozone-season emissions for Massachusetts. This action will delete and reserve 40 CFR section 52.1140 in Part 52. VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ). Because this action proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under State law and would not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposal also does not have tribal implications because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also does not have Federalism implications because it would not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal standard and will result, as a consequence of that approval, in the Administrator's withdrawal of the CAIR FIP. It does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it would approve a State rule implementing a Federal Standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule would not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides. Dated: July 24, 2007. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. [FR Doc. E7-14887 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0462; FRL-8442-5] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen (NO X ) emissions from boilers, process heaters, steam generators, and glass melting furnaces. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by August 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0462, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions. 2. *E-mail:* *steckel.andrew@epa.gov* . 3. *Mail or deliver:* Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information

(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *http://www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *http://www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco Dóñez, EPA Region IX,

(415)972-3956, *Donez.Francisco@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local rules: SMAQMD 411 and SJVAPCD 4354. In the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** , we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action. Dated: June 20, 2007. Jane Diamond, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-14587 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0477; FRL-8448-4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan

(SIP)revision submitted by the state of Iowa for maintenance of the sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard in Muscatine, Iowa. DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by August 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0477 by one of the following methods: 1. *http://www.regulations.gov:* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. *E-mail:* *Hamilton.heather@epa.gov.* 3. *Mail:* Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. 4. *Hand Delivery or Courier:* Deliver your comments to: Heather Hamilton, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this **Federal Register** for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Heather Hamilton at

(913)551-7039, or by e-mail at *Hamilton.heather@epa.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the **Federal Register** , EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts 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: July 22, 2007. John B. Askew, Regional Administrator, Region 7. [FR Doc. E7-14869 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [FRL-8447-3] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List; Partial Deletion of Sites From the Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards Superfund Site AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: EPA is announcing its intent to partially delete 61 source area sites on the Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards Superfund Site from the National Priorities List

(NPL)and requests public comment on this action. A source area site is defined by: soil; structures, if present; and does not include any contaminated groundwater plume that may be below the site. Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards is a Federal Facility Superfund Site known locally as the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), so this notice will use MMR as the abbreviation to describe the entire Superfund Site. The United States Air Force is the lead agency at the MMR Superfund Site. EPA bases its proposal to partially delete the 61 source area sites from the MMR Superfund Site on the determination of EPA and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), that all appropriate response actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) have been implemented to protect human health, welfare, and the environment and that no further response actions by responsible parties, at these 61 sites, are appropriate. Based on all investigations completed to date, there are 80 source area sites at MMR. Upon conclusion of this process, there would be 19 source area sites remaining. This partial deletion pertains to only the surface area of sites investigated (and in some cases cleaned-up) for soil contamination, and does not pertain to any of the 12 groundwater plumes associated with MMR Superfund Site. All other sites (including all contaminated groundwater plumes on the Site) not included in this notice will remain on the NPL. In the northern half of the MMR, there are source area sites and groundwater plumes associated with an investigation and cleanup program known as the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program which is being conducted under the authority of Safe Drinking Water Act Administrative Orders. These sites and groundwater plumes are not the subject of this partial deletion proposal. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of CERCLA, as amended, is Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This partial deletion of the Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards Superfund Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List (60 FR 55466). This action is being proposed by EPA with the concurrence of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through the MassDEP, because EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed and, therefore, further remedial action pursuant to CERCLA is not appropriate. DATES: Comments concerning this proposed partial deletion may be submitted on or before August 31, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUN-1989-0007, by one of the following methods: • *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail* : lim.robert@epa.gov. • *Fax* : 617-918-0392. • *Mail* : Bob Lim, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA. New England Region, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (HBT), Boston, MA 02114. • *Hand Delivery:* Records Center, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. *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 available online at *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through *http://www.regulations.gov,* your e-mail 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 hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EPA's New England Region Superfund Records Center, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114 and the Information Repositories at AFCEE/IRP Office at Building 322 on MMR, by appointment only Monday through Friday 8 am to 5 pm,

(508)968-4670 ext 1, and the Information Repositories in the Towns of Bourne, Falmouth, Sandwich, and Mashpee. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Lim, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (HBT), Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023,

(617)918-1392, Fax

(617)918-1291, e-mail: *lim.robert@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Intent for Partial Site Deletion A. Site Histories for Partial Deletion Sites 1. Investigation Findings for No Action Sites 2. Investigation Findings and Response Action Summaries B. Community Involvement C. Current Status I. Introduction EPA is announcing its intent to partially delete 61 source area sites on the Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards Superfund Site from the National Priorities List

(NPL)and requests public comment on this action. A source area site is defined by: Soil; structures, if present; and does not include any contaminated groundwater plume that may be below the site. Otis Air National Guard Base/Camp Edwards is a Federal Facility Superfund Site known locally as the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), so this notice will use MMR as the abbreviation to describe the entire Superfund Site. Furthermore to avoid confusion, this notice will use a lowercase “s” when referring to the individual source area sites and a uppercase “S” for the entire Superfund Site. The United States Air Force through the Air Force Center for Engineering and Environment (AFCEE) is the lead agency at the MMR Superfund Site. The NPL was promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. This partial deletion of the 61 sites on the MMR Superfund Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List (60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995)). EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete the 61 sites for thirty

(30)days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . EPA and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) have determined that remedial action on site soil and, if present, structures at these clearly defined 61 sites have been successfully completed. The remaining sites of the MMR Superfund Site will remain on the NPL (all groundwater, surface water and soil not contained in these 61 portions (see Table 1)) for remedial investigation, remedial action, and continued monitoring. MMR occupies over 22,000 acres of land in portions of the Towns of Bourne, Falmouth, Mashpee, and Sandwich. MMR was listed on the National Priorities List in 1989 (CERCLIS ID—MA2570024487). A two-party Federal Facility Agreement which was signed in 1991, and as subsequently amended, requires the Air Force to take the lead on cleanup activities for Installation Restoration Program sites at MMR. The military's Installation Restoration Program

(IRP)was established in 1982 leading to numerous soil and groundwater investigations and cleanups in the southern, developed southern half of the base. In addition, the military has extended public water supply lines into neighborhoods where plumes have affected groundwater underneath homes which had relied on private wells. To date, investigations have identified 80 source area sites and 12 groundwater plumes. Figures and tables supporting this notice are found in separate appendices in the Deletion Docket. Figure 1 shows all IRP source area sites and IRP plumes. For more information on the site history and current news at MMR, visit the program's Web site ( *http://www.mmr.org* ). This partial deletion proposal pertains to the soil and, if present, structures at 61 sites ranging in size from half an acre to 80.7 acres. The total proposed area is 482.1 acres. Acreage and coordinates for each individual site are presented in each site summary. In addition, the Deletion Docket contains a file with a table of all sites with the area and coordinates of each site. Table 1 identifies structures as being present with an asterisk next to the site name and noted in those site summaries. Based on all investigations completed to date, there are 80 source area sites at MMR. Upon conclusion of this process, there would be 19 source area sites remaining. Even though some of the sites appear to be above contaminated groundwater plumes, this partial deletion does not include any plumes of contaminated groundwater because data shows that the sites are not related to the plumes. Figure 1 identifies the 12 plumes of contaminated groundwater associated with MMR Superfund cleanup. They are: Ashumet Valley, Chemical Spill-4 (CS-4); CS-10; CS-19; CS-20; CS-21; CS-23; Fuel Spill-1 (FS-1); FS-12; FS-28; FS-29; and Landfill-1. Primary contaminants of concern in these plumes include solvents ( *i.e.* , trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene), fuel components ( *i.e.* , ethylene dibromide), and an explosive compound ( *i.e.* , 1,3,5-hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitrotoluene (RDX)), in the CS-19 plume. There are currently eleven groundwater pump and treat cleanup remedies for which cleanup on some plumes is expected to continue for over 25 years. AFCEE currently operates groundwater cleanup systems for 11 groundwater plumes and treats over 18 million gallons per day. From 1997 to March 2007, over 32 billion gallons of contaminated groundwater have been extracted and treated. In the northern half of MMR, there is a separate, ongoing investigation and cleanup program known as the Impact Area Groundwater Study Program (IAGWSP). These sites and groundwater plumes are not the subject of this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion. The authority for this program is based upon EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA)Program. In February 1997, EPA's New England regional office (EPA New England) issued SDWA Administrative Order 1-97-1019

(AO1)requiring investigation of contamination at or emanating from the Training Ranges and Impact Area upon the sole source aquifer that underlies MMR and surrounding communities. In May 1997, EPA New England issued SDWA Administrative Order 1-97-1030 (AO2), which prohibited all live firing of mortars and artillery, firing of lead from small arms, planned detonation of ordnance or explosives at or near the Training Ranges and Impact Area except for UXO activities, and certain other training related activities. In January 2000, EPA New England issued SDWA Administrative Order 1-2000-0014 (AO3), which required the IAGWSP to implement Rapid Response Actions

(RRAs)and remedial actions to “abate the threat to public health presented by the contamination from past and present activities and sources at and emanating from the Training Ranges and Impact Area.” The Department of the Army is undertaking the investigation and cleanup under the Administrative Orders. EPA has issued a total of four Administrative Orders for investigation and cleanup, and prohibition of all live fire of munitions, propellants and pyrotechnics, demolition training, firing of lead from small arms, planned detonation of ordnance, or explosives except for UXO activities and certain other training related activities. Figure 1 shows a number of plumes which have been identified in the IAGWSP investigations. The primary contaminants of concern in these plumes are 1,3,5-hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitrotoluene

(RDX)and perchlorate, which are mapped to their non-detect boundary ( *i.e.* , 0.35 parts per billion for perchlorate and 0.25 parts per billion for RDX). The MassDEP has promulgated a 2.0 part per billion groundwater cleanup standard for perchlorate. There is no promulgated groundwater standard for RDX, but its Health Advisory is 2.0 parts per billion and its risk-based action level for a one-in-million excess cancer risk probability is 0.6 parts per billion. Shown on Figure 1, the IAGWSP plumes of contaminated groundwater are: Central Impact Area (CIA); Demolition Area 1 (Demo 1); Demo 2; J-1 North; J-2 North; J-2 East; J-3; L-Range; and Northwest Corner. IAGWSP source area sites are not shown on Figure 1. In 2004 and 2005, short-term response actions were undertaken to address both soil and groundwater contamination. Currently, there are temporary groundwater cleanup systems for Demo 1, J-2 North and J-3 South plumes. For more information on this program, visit the program's Web site ( *http://groundwaterprogram.army.mil* ). The EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions if conditions at a deleted site warrant such action. Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses sites in detail, the soil portion of each of the 61 sites, and explains how each site meets the deletion criteria. II. NPL Deletion Criteria The National Contingency Plan

(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 to protect public health or the environment. In making such a determination pursuant to § 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether the following criteria have been met: • 300.425(e)(1)(i). Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; or • § 300.425(e)(1)(ii). All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented; or • § 300.425(e)(1)(iii). The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for subsequent Fund-financed actions at the area deleted if future site conditions warrant such actions. § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP provides that Fund-financed actions may be taken at sites that have been deleted from the NPL. A partial deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect or impede EPA's ability to conduct CERCLA response activities at area not deleted and remaining on the NPL. In addition, deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not affect the liability of responsible parties or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts. In the case of MMR, the selected remedies are protective of human health and the environment. Two five-year reviews have been conducted at MMR. Copies are located at the repository previously noted. For sites with remedies or final decisions, the remedies were deemed protective, and no information existed to warrant any changes to protectiveness statements for other sites. III. Deletion Procedures Deletion of the 61 sites on the MMR Superfund Site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any person's rights or obligations. Deletion of the site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, NCP § 300.425(e)(3). The following procedures were used for the proposed deletion of the following study areas from the MMR Superfund Site: • EPA has recommended the partial deletion and has prepared the relevant documents. • EPA has consulted with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the partial deletion of the sites from the NPL. • The Commonwealth of Massachusetts concurred with the partial deletion of the sites from the NPL. • Concurrent with this national Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion, a public notice will also appear in a local newspaper. Additionally, notice has been distributed to appropriate Federal, State, local officials, and other interested parties. These notices announce a thirty

(30)day public comment period on the deletion package, which commences on the date of the publication of this document in the **Federal Register** and a newspaper of record. • All relevant documents have been compiled in the site deletion docket and are available at the information repositories listed previously. Upon completion of the thirty

(30)day public comment period for the deletion of the 61 sites on the MMR Superfund Site, EPA's New England regional office will accept and evaluate all public comments received before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the Agency will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. The Responsiveness Summary will be made available to the public at the information repositories listed previously (or in the site docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* ). If, after review of all public comments, EPA determines that the partial deletion from the NPL is appropriate, EPA will publish a final Notice of Partial Deletion in the **Federal Register** . Deletion of the 61 sites does not actually occur until the final Notice of Partial Deletion is published in the **Federal Register** . IV. Basis for Intent for Partial Site Deletion A. Site Histories for Partial Deletion Sites The following information presents EPA's rationale for deleting the sites from the MMR Superfund Site. To aid in the understanding of the 61 sites that are the subject of this action, the site history narratives are organized into two groups, Sections A.1 and A.2. A summary of the site names are found in Table 1 which is found in a tables appendix in the Deletion Docket. Section A.1 contains site narratives where no cleanup action was taken because the investigation found the site conditions to be protective of both human and the environment. Section A.2 contains sites where actions (CERCLA and non-CERCLA actions) have been completed. 1. Investigation Findings for No Action Sites The sites in this section have been investigated, but were found to have no contamination and no CERCLA or non-CERCLA actions have been taken. Sites with structures that are part of the partial deletion are noted in the each narrative, if present, and are identified in Table 2 with an asterisk. Table 2 can be found in the tables appendix in the Deletion Docket. Figures that are referenced in this section can be found in a figures appendix in the Deletion Document. The no action decisions for these 17 sites have been documented in decision documents called No Further Action Decision Documents. These documents are jointly signed by representatives from EPA, the Air Force and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and provide investigation summaries and the conclusion of no action. At MMR and other Federal Facility Superfund Sites, no action for sites, which have only been investigated at the preliminary assessment/site inspection (PA/SI) level of effort and found to require no action, are typically documented via a No Further Action Decision Document rather than Record of Decision. Chemical Spill-5 (U.S. Coast Guard) (CS-5 (CG)) Site Location and History CS-5 (CG), U.S. Coast Guard Carpentry Shop, is located in the Cantonment Area of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (MA State Plane NAD27 feet) are: 856392, 242413; 856587, 242280; 856502, 242170; 856307, 242305; and 856392, 242413. The area CS-5

(CG)proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates. CS-5

(CG)is a less than one-acre area which featured a carpentry shop which operated from 1973 to the mid-1990s and housed paint wastes such as turpentine, thinner, and excess paint. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A Phase I Records Search was completed in December 1986. The site was assessed and found to have no evidence of past disposal or spills of hazardous substances. No feasibility study was conducted since the records search concluded that the site did not impact the soil and groundwater. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in July 1991. No risks are present at CS-5

(CG)proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates. CS-7

(CG)is a one tenth of an acre area which featured a dry-cleaning facility which operated from the mid-1960s to 1975 using a TCE-containing dry-cleaning compound. The dry-cleaning machines were reported to have periodically leaked fluid on the floor which had floor drains that were connected to the base sanitary sewer system. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A Phase I Records Search was completed in December 1986. The site was assessed and found to have no evidence of past disposal or spills of hazardous substances onto site soil because any leaked or spilled dry-cleaning fluids would have flowed into the building's floor drains which are connected to the base sanitary sewer system. No feasibility study was conducted since the records search concluded that the site did not impact the soil and groundwater. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in July 1991. No risks are present at CS-7

(CG)and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-12 (CS-12) Site Location and History CS-12, Veterans Administration Roads and Grounds Shop, is located in the Cantonment Area of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 851979, 246666; 852048, 246851; 852328, 246750; 852260, 246566; and 851979, 246666. The area CS-12 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates. CS-12 is a one-acre area which featured a maintenance shop for the Veterans Administration which has operated since 1980. All generated wastes are disposed at an off-site location, but any spills would have flowed into floor drains which include an oil/water separator and leaching pit. No significant spills of waste petroleum, oil or lubricants; solvents; herbicides; or pesticides are know to have occurred. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A Phase I Records Search was completed in December 1986. The site was assessed and found to have no evidence of past disposal or spills of hazardous substances. Investigation indicated no contamination requiring action. Current hazardous waste management practices were reviewed and found to be adequate in preventing spills and releases to the environment. No feasibility study was conducted since the records search concluded that the site did not impact the soil and groundwater. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in July 1991. No risks are present at CS-12 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Coal Yard-1 (CY-1) Site Location and History CY-1 is located in the western half of the Cantonment Area of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 855517, 240898; 856096, 240798; 856109, 240882; 856835, 240781; 856662, 240092; 856946, 240284; 855839, 239812; 855260, 239978; and 855517, 240898. The area CY-1 proposed for partial deletion includes all structures and surface soils within these coordinates. CY-1 is a 24.5-acre former U.S. Army coal storage area which operated from 1940 to 1957. Coal was unloaded and stockpiled on the ground surface prior to transport to individual power plants. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities Since CY-1 had a similar operational history to CY-2 and CY-4, findings from CY-2 and CY-4 investigations were used to guide the CY-1 investigation. Investigations at CY-2 and CY-4 included: soil borings and monitoring well installation; surface and subsurface soil samples; and ash samples. Results from these investigations demonstrated that coal storages did not cause soil or groundwater contamination. Of the few detected analytes, all were below action levels. The distribution of PAHs at CY-2 suggests that significant leaching of PAHs from coal storage activities has not occurred. Groundwater data from CY-2 also confirms that PAHs are not migrating to groundwater. A groundwater monitoring well at CY-1 was installed in 1998 and found not to contact any site-related contaminants. Additional surface soil sampling was conducted at CY-1 in June 2001. Samples were analyzed for specific metals (i.e, arsenic, chromium, lead, vanadium, and zinc). All results were below action levels. Based on the findings at CY-2 and CY-4, and of additional investigations at CY-1 and CY-3, no further action was recommended at CY-1. No feasibility study was conducted since the investigations concluded that there were no risks to human health and the environment. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in January 2003. No risks requiring action are present at CY-1, and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Coal Yard-3 (CY-3) Site Location and History CY-3 is located in the western half of the Cantonment Area of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Northing and Easting coordinates (NAD27) are: 854442, 243657; 855106, 243623; 854977, 243197; 854604, 243197; 854602, 243379; 854454, 243431; and 854442, 243657. The area CY-3 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. CY-3 is a five-acre area which was located at the former VA hospital steam plant which operated from 1945 to 1972. Coal was stored on an unbermed, paved pad before transfer to hopper bins. Coal ash was temporarily stored in a pit before being taken to the on-base landfill. All stockpiled coal and ash have been removed. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities Since CY-3 had a similar operational history to CY-2 and CY-4, findings from CY-2 and CY-4 investigations were used to guide the CY-3 investigation. Investigations at CY-2 and CY-4 included: soil borings and monitoring well installation; surface and subsurface soil samples; and ash samples. Results from these investigations demonstrated that coal storages did not cause soil or groundwater contamination. Of the few detected analytes, all were below action levels. The distribution of PAHs at CY-2 suggests that significant leaching of PAHs from coal storage activities has not occurred. Groundwater data from CY-2 also confirms that PAHs are not migrating to groundwater. A groundwater monitoring well at CY-1 was installed in 1998 and found not to contact any site-related contaminants. Additional surface soil sampling was conducted at CY-3 in June 2001. Samples were analyzed for specific metals (i.e, arsenic, chromium, lead, vanadium, and zinc). All results were below action levels. Based on the findings at CY-2 and CY-4, and of additional investigations at CY-1 and CY-3, no further action was recommended at CY-3. No feasibility study was conducted since the investigations concluded that there were no risks to human health and the environment. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in January 2003. No risks requiring action are present at CY-3, and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-2 (U.S. Coast Guard) (FS-2 (CG)) Site Location and History FS-2

(CG)is located in the western half of the Cantonment Area of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 856255, 237383; 857124, 237257; 857125, 236889; 856250, 237016, and 856255, 237383. The area FS-2

(CG)proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. FS-2

(CG)is a four-acre area which was a former location of a hot-mix asphalt plant which operated between 1941 and 1943. It was reported that asphalt transportation trucks were washed with kerosene or diesel fuel at an unknown location within the area. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A preliminary assessment in 1986 identified FS-2

(CG)as a potential area of past uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances. During field investigations between October 1990 and January 1991, and in 1993, test pits were excavated and surface soil and subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed to evaluate site conditions. A downgradient monitoring well was also installed and sampled. In 1995, additional soil samples (surface and subsurface) were collected using a hand-auger and analyzed. Soil data and field observations confirmed the presence of the past asphalt-batching plant and construction debris. Semivolatile compounds (i.e., those typically found in asphalt) were detected. Inorganics were sporadically detected above background concentrations. Compounds observed in soil were not observed in groundwater which is further indication of no source areas at the site. Human health and ecological risk was evaluated at the site and indicated that the site did not pose a risk warranting any action. No feasibility study was conducted since a risk evaluation concluded that there were no risks to human health and the environment. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in February 2000. No risks requiring action are present at FS-2 (CG), and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-3 (FS-3) Site Location and History FS-3, the Johns Pond Fuel Dump Site, is located south of the MMR boundary, as shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 865984, 235664; 866044, 235743; 867241, 234840; 867181, 234760; and 865984, 235664. The area FS-3 proposed for partial deletion includes all structures and surface soils within these coordinates. FS-3 is a three-acre area which consists of a 1,500 foot road section along Back Road and 50 feet on either side of the road. It was estimated that between 1955 and 1962, an average of three aircraft refueler trucks per week each drained 40 gallons of fuel or fuel-contaminated water onto the shoulders of this road section. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A preliminary assessment in 1986 identified FS-3 as a potential area of past uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances. A site investigation which included a soil gas survey, soil boring and monitoring well installation, and collection and analysis of soil and groundwater samples was conducted in 1988. Soil data showed an absence of contaminant source areas and were consistent with background values for inorganics. Fuel-related compounds were not detected in groundwater. The investigation data supported that there was no contaminated soil or groundwater from the historical releases. No feasibility study was conducted since a risk evaluation concluded that there were no risks to human health and the environment. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in January 2000. No risks are present at FS-3 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-15 (FS-15) Site Location and History FS-15, Runway No. 5, is located in the secure flightline area of the MMR, as shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 864651, 238513; 864787, 238949; 865144, 238777; 864832, 238386; and 864651, 238513. The area FS-15 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. FS-15 is a three-acre area which was known as the Runway No. 5 fuel spill of aviation gasoline. It was reported to have occurred in the early 1960s when a plane crashed near at the southern end of the runway by the same name. A significant amount of the fuel was consumed in a fire. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A Phase I Records Search was completed in December 1986. The records search concluded that there was negligible contaminant migration into the soil and groundwater because the fire following the fuel spill consumed the fuel. No feasibility study was conducted since the records search concluded that the spill did not impact the soil and groundwater. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in August 1990. No risks are present at FS-15 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-16 (FS-16) Site Location and History FS-16, Army Maintenance, Building 2816, is located in the secure flightline area of the MMR, as shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 863696, 241715; 863796, 241952; 863998, 241855; 863892, 241627; and 863696, 241715. The area FS-16 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates. FS-16 is a one-acre area which was located outside of Building 2816, the Army Helicopter Maintenance Building, where a tanker truck spilled approximately 200 gallons of JP-4 in 1982. The spill was washed off the tarmac and into the surrounding ground. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A Phase I Records Search was completed in December 1986. The records search concluded that there was negligible contaminant migration into the soil and groundwater because the volume of spilled fuel was small and it was assumed that a majority of the spilled fuel volatilized and degraded over time. No feasibility study was conducted since the records search concluded that the spill did not impact the soil and groundwater. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in July 1991. No risks are present at FS-16 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-27 (FS-27) Site Location and History FS-27 is located south of the MMR boundary, as shown in Figure 4. It is three parcels with coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27). The first parcel's coordinates are: 857983, 238854; 857986, 238536; 857917, 238536; 857918, 238854; and 857983, 238854. The second parcel's coordinates are: 855492, 242421; 855716, 242424; 855716, 242258; 855494, 242260; and 855492, 242421. The third parcel's coordinates are: 858088, 244484; 859974, 243704; 859949, 243537; 860044, 243382; 860235, 243323; 860326, 243027; 862694, 241938; 861667, 239703; 861660, 239707; 862683, 241932; 860319, 243022; 860229, 243316; 860036, 243377; 859941, 243536; 859966, 243700; 858085, 244476; 854176, 246140; 854023, 245467; 853789, 245026; 853460, 244616; 853187, 244306; 853109, 243761; 853238, 243553; 852968, 243312; 852963, 243318; 853228, 243557; 853100, 243760; 853180, 244310; 853454, 244621; 853782, 245031; 854015, 245469; 854168, 246143; 852475, 246877; 850727, 248013; 850572, 248268; 850170, 249298; 849787, 249779; 849347, 250292; 849095, 250502; 848664, 250713; 848399, 250928; 848404, 250934; 848668, 250720; 849099, 250509; 849353, 250297; 849793, 249784; 850177, 249302; 850580, 248271; 850732, 248020; 852482, 246881; and 858088, 244484. The area FS-27 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. FS-27 is composed of three areas totaling six acres where soil excavated during the installation of a fiber-optic cable line along Connery Avenue, West Hospital Road, North Inner Road, and Generals Boulevard was stockpiled. The stockpiles were: beneath overhead power lines off Guenther Road (approximately 1,000 cubic yards); and in an embankment (approximately 480 cubic yards) behind Building 5202 (the 3-in-1 Store). Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities Investigation of potential contamination from FS-27 excavated soil was initiated because petroleum hydrocarbons were detected in March 1990 in soil from the Guenther Road stockpile when it was used as backfill at another site. A site inspection at FS-27 along the fiber optic line was conducted in 1993. A remedial investigation of the area adjacent to Building 5202 was conducted in 1993-1994. A supplemental investigation was conducted in 1999. Activities included subsurface soil sampling, installation of monitoring wells, and analyses of soil and groundwater samples. Results from the investigations demonstrated that the soil was not significantly impacted from site activities. Groundwater samples near Building 5202 show that the soil is not contaminated and impacting the groundwater. No feasibility study was conducted since a risk evaluation concluded that there were no risks to human health or the environment. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in May 2001. No risks are present at FS-27 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Landfill-1 (U.S. Coast Guard) (LF-1 (CG)) Site Location and History LF-1

(CG)is located in the southeastern portion of MMR, as shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 866535, 243403; 866639, 242391; 865910, 242353; 865811, 243343; and 866535, 243403. The area LF-1

(CG)proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. LF-1

(CG)is a 16-acre area that was used for disposal of asphalt and debris generated during a runway extension project completed in the 1950s. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities This site was initially identified in the records search in 1986. Empty containers and asphalt rubble were observed during a walkover which was conducted in February 1990. A single downgradient monitoring well was installed to monitor for potential impact of the site on groundwater. Groundwater sampling results demonstrated no impact to groundwater quality. No feasibility study was conducted since no contaminants of concern were identified. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in December 1995. No risks are present at LF-1

(CG)is a nine-acre area which was used for the disposal of asphalt and concrete. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A Phase I Records Search was completed in December 1986. The site was assessed and found to have no evidence of past disposal or spills of hazardous substances. No feasibility study was conducted since the records search concluded that the site did not impact the soil and groundwater. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in July 1991. No risks are present at LF-2

(USCG)proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. LF-3

(CG)is a 13-acre area which was used for the disposal of demolition rubble and debris. The site received sand and gravel excavated from the construction of a dispensary building. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A Phase I Records Search was completed in December 1986. The site was assessed and found to have no evidence of past disposal or spills of hazardous substances. No feasibility study was conducted since the records search concluded that the site did not impact the soil and groundwater. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in July 1991. No risks are present at LF-3

(CG)and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Landfill-5 (LF-5) Site Location and History LF-5, Rubble Landfill at Veterans Administration Cemetery, is located in the Cantonment Area of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 854089, 245737; 853972, 245339; 853768, 245007; 853211, 245502; 853293, 245758, and 854089, 245737. The area LF-5 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. LF-5 is a ten-acre area which contained a concrete rubble and debris fill area. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A Phase I Records Search was completed in December 1986. The site was assessed and found to have no evidence of past disposal or spills of hazardous substances. No feasibility study was conducted since the records search concluded that the landfill did not impact the soil and groundwater. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in August 1990. No risks are present at LF-5 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Landfill-6 (LF-6) Site Location and History LF-6, former U.S. Navy Construction Landfill, is located in the secure flightline area just west of Runway 5, as shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 865512, 240132; 865654, 240686; 865844, 240664; 865915, 240040, and 865512, 240132. The area LF-6 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. LF-6 is a four-acre area which contained a debris and concrete rubble fill area during expansion of the taxiway area and has been paved over. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A Phase I Records Search was completed in December 1986. The site was assessed and found to have no evidence of past disposal or spills of hazardous substances. No feasibility study was conducted since the records search concluded that the landfill did not impact the soil and groundwater. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in August 1990. No risks are present at LF-6 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards No response actions have been taken and no cleanup standards have been set. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. 2. Investigation Findings and Response Action Summaries These sites have been investigated and have had actions (CERCLA and/or non-CERCLA) to reduce and/or eliminate any risk to human health and environment, and to prevent soil contamination from leaching into groundwater. Sites with structures that are part of the partial deletion are noted at the beginning of each of the descriptions. Table 3 which is found in a tables appendix in the Deletion Docket contains a summary of the site names. There are a total of 44 sites in this group. Figures showing the location of the following sites are found in the figures appendix of the Deletion Docket. Chemical Spill-1 (CS-1) Site Location and History CS-1 is located on North Truck Road, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 864286, 242486; 860657, 244156; 860795, 244472; 861764, 243991; 861854, 244185; 864463, 242886; and 864286, 242486. The area CS-1 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and existing structures within these coordinates. CS-1 was active from 1941 to 1946, and was a 40-acre vehicle maintenance site with a motor pool, 11 vehicle maintenance buildings, and 11 gas stations. Other components of the site included 12 catch basins located within the paved motor pool areas, 11 leaching wells associated with the vehicle maintenance buildings, and the fenced perimeter that received surface runoff from the pavement. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A site inspection at CS-1 was conducted in 1993 and led to two rounds of confirmational sampling in 1995 and 1999. The site inspection field work consisted of magnetometer surveys, surface and subsurface soil sampling, monitoring well installation, and groundwater sampling. The field work identified two USTs, confirmed removal of USTs near a taxiway, found metals (beryllium, chromium, lead, nickel, and thallium) in unfiltered groundwater samples, detected low concentrations of organic compounds in groundwater samples, and found contamination in catch basins and vehicle maintenance building leaching wells. Groundwater sampling in 1995 using the low flow purge and sampling technique showed that metals were below action levels at the site and earlier detections were due to suspended particulates. The site inspection recommended removal of existing USTs, vehicle maintenance building foundation slabs, work pits and associated soil, and catch basins. A groundwater sampling event in 1999 confirmed that there was no organic groundwater contamination present below the site. No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the form of CERCLA removal actions were conducted as part of the basewide drainage structure removal program. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings Due to the response actions conducted under the drainage structure removal program in 1996, a No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in September 1999. No further risks are present at CS-1 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1985 and 1986, nine USTs were removed under non-CERCLA authority ( *i.e.* , no Action Memorandum was issued). In addition, as part of a basewide drainage structure CERCLA removal program, a total of 49 drainage structures and associated contaminated soil (approximately 900 tons) were removed in 1996. Two 5,000 gallon USTs inside the flight line area were identified and removed. Excavated soil was transported to an on-base asphalt batching facility. Given its location in an active portion of the MMR, structures related to airfield activities remain present within the former CS-1 site. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-1 (U.S.Coast Guard) (CS-1 (CG)) Site Location and History Chemical Spill-1 (U.S. Coast Guard) (CS-1 (CG)) is also known as the U.S. Coast Guard Transmitter Station and is shown in Figure 3. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 871486, 261949; 871765, 261814; 871693, 241646; 871825, 261572; 871681, 261267; 871107, 261544; 871292, 261850; 871406, 261794; and 871486, 261949. The area CS-1

(CG)proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and existing structures within these coordinates. CS-1

(CG)occupies a six-acre area where a building, a 4,000-gallon underground storage tank, and storage sheds are located. Between 1968 and 1975, activities such as disposal of waste solvent on the ground and burial of used electrical components may have released contaminants into the environment. Drummed solvents were stored on-site; however the storage area has since been removed of drums and covered by an addition to the transmitter building. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities Site investigations were conducted to characterize the nature and distribution of contaminants at CS-1

(CG)between 1986 and 1993. A ground-penetrating radar survey identified anomalies in which electrical cabinets were found and removed. The SI and RI did not identify compounds at concentrations indicative of disposal of hazardous substances. No feasibility study was conducted since the site did not pose a risk. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The investigations concluded that the site did not pose a risk. A Record of Decision was finalized in September 1995 and selected no further action with semi-annual groundwater monitoring for volatile organic compounds. In July 2004, after several years of monitoring data, an agreement was reached to cease groundwater monitoring as concentrations were below any action levels. No further risks are present at CS-1

(CG)and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards No response actions have been conducted, therefore no cleanup standards have been set. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-2 (CS-2) Site Location and History CS-2 is located in the Cantonment Area of the MMR, as shown in Figure 5. It is composed of two parcels. Their coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 863028, 237328; 863695, 238801; 863882, 238716; 863205, 237242; and 863028, 237328 for parcel A; and 863989, 240813; 864349, 240657; 864097, 240141; 863963, 240203; 864145, 240589; 863929, 240685; and 863989, 240813 for parcel B. The area CS-2 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. CS-2 is a ten-acre area composed of three former motor pools and subsurface structures associated with a building. Each motor pool which was active from 1941 to 1946 originally consisted of a vehicle maintenance building, a gas station with a leaching well, one or two underground storage tanks, and one or two other buildings. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities CS-2 was identified as a potential site from a records search which was conducted in 1986. A sump investigation was conducted in 1991 which led to a site inspection in 1993 and groundwater sampling in 1999. The site inspection field work consisted of magnetometer surveys, surface and subsurface soil sampling, monitoring well installation, and groundwater sampling focusing on the presence or absence of contamination associated with the former motor pools and subsurface structures. The site inspection's magnetometer survey confirmed that five USTs associated with Blocks 2, 4 and 5 were removed. Sampling results for soil and groundwater did not identify significant organic or metals contamination from historical uses. A groundwater sampling event in 1999 confirmed that there was no organic or metals contamination as the results were below action levels. No feasibility study was conducted since a CERCLA removal response action removed drainage structures which were potential contamination sources, and a risk evaluation determined that there were no risks to human health or the environment. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings Due to the response actions conducted under the drainage structure removal program in 1996, a No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in November 2000. No further risks are present at CS-2 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In the early to mid-1980s, five USTs associated with Blocks 2, 4 and 5 were removed under non-CERCLA authority. In addition, as part of a CERCLA basewide drainage structure removal program, a total of 18 drainage structures and associated contaminated soil were removed in 1996. Excavated soil was transported to an on-base asphalt batching facility. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-2 (U.S. Coast Guard) (CS-2 (CG)) Site Location and History CS-2

(CG)is located within the secured flightline area of the MMR, as shown in Figure 5. The coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 866410, 244042; 867591, 244186; 867664, 243676; 867263, 243637; 867313, 243185; 867049, 243157; 867000, 243604; 866463, 243551; and 866410, 244042. The area CS-2

(CG)proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and existing structures within these coordinates. CS-2

(CG)is a 16-acre area which featured U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Hangars 3170 and 3172, a former auto hobby shop in Building 3161, a former Ground Support Shop in Building 3162, and administrative facilities in Buildings 3163 and 3164. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities CS-2

(CG)was investigated several times between 1989 and 1995 with additional groundwater and sediment sampling in 1999. Investigation activities included a geophysical survey, soil gas survey, test pitting, soil borings, installation of monitoring wells, and collection and analysis of soil and sediment samples. Results of the site investigations indicated minor releases of fuel, polychlorinated biphenyls, and inorganic compounds in the area. However, based on the results of a risk evaluation, unacceptable human health and ecological risks are not expected from exposures to soil and groundwater. No feasibility study was conducted since a CERCLA response action removed drainage structures which were potential contamination sources, and a risk evaluation determined that there were no risks to human health or the environment. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings Due to the response actions conducted under the drainage structure removal program in 1996, a No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in November 2000. No further risks are present at CS-2

(CG)and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1996, a leaching well and leach field associated with Building 3170 were removed in a CERCLA removal action as part of a basewide drainage structure removal program. A dry well located west of Building 3162 was replaced in 1992 and contaminated sediments were removed. In April 1993, an 8,000 gallon underground storage tank was removed in a non-CERCLA action. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-3 (CS-3) Site Location and History CS-3, South Truck Road Motor Pool, is located in the southern portion of the MMR, as shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 858508, 238559; 858508, 238564; 861531, 237143; 851364, 236782; 860282, 237287; 860004, 236700; 859113, 237123; 859391, 237706; 858339, 238201; and 858508, 238559. The area CS-3 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and existing structures within these coordinates. CS-3 is a 45-acre area which featured a motor pool which was used by various agencies (U.S. Army from 1940 to 1946; Air National Guard Civil Engineering from 1950 to 1973; and U.S. Air Force from 1955 to 1973). Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities Following a preliminary assessment in 1986, CS-3 was investigated and characterized during two site inspections in 1988 and 1989, and a groundwater sampling program in 1999. Investigation activities included: a soil gas survey; excavation of test pits; installation of test boring and monitoring wells; and soil and groundwater sampling and analysis. In 1991, sumps at CS-3 were investigated as part of a basewide investigation program. Soil and groundwater sampling detected minimal contamination. Results of the human health and ecological risk assessments suggest that unacceptable levels of risk are not anticipated. No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the form of non-CERCLA and CERCLA removal actions were conducted and the investigations concluded that the site did not pose a risk to human health or the environment. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The risk assessment concluded no significant risk to human health and environment. A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in June 2000. No further risks are present at CS-3 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards Several response actions have been conducted at the site. In 1985, six underground storage tanks were removed in a non-CERCLA action. In 1996, six underground drainage structures were removed in a CERCLA action, and one was abandoned in place during a base-wide drainage structural removal program. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-3 (U.S. Coast Guard) (CS-3 (CG)) Site Location and History CS-3

(CG)occupies approximately two acres in the south central portion of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 855290, 242137; 855401, 242259; 855631, 242260; 855777, 242169; 855597, 242919; and 855290, 242137. The area CS-3

(CG)proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and existing structures within these coordinates. CS-3

(CG)was the former location of an automobile service and gasoline station. The site is currently occupied by a gasoline station, convenience store, and garden shop. Activities that may have introduced hazardous substances to this area occurred from 1951 to 1979. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A records review for CS-3

(CG)was conducted in 1986. A remedial investigation was conducted during 1991. Surface and subsurface soil samples were collected from various locations such as former USTs and the leaching well. In both soil and groundwater, there were sporadic detections of VOCs (1,2-dichloromethane, toluene, xylenes, and ketones), TPH, SVOCs (i.e., bis-2(ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, trimethylbenzenes (in groundwater only)), pesticides (i.e., chlordane, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)) and metals (in groundwater only) (i.e., arsenic, manganese, lead, and thallium). Since soil and groundwater detections were detected sporadically and below action levels, it was concluded that widespread disposal of hazardous waste has not occurred at CS-3 (CG). Considering that detections were below background concentrations and action levels, the human health and ecological risk assessments determined that the site does not pose a risk. No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the form of non-CERCLA and CERCLA removal actions were conducted and the remedial investigation concluded that the site did not pose a risk to human health or the environment. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The risk assessment concluded no significant risk to human health and environment. A No Action Record of Decision was finalized in September 1998. No further risks are present at CS-3

(CG)and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1985, an underground storage tank was found to be leaking and a non-CERCLA removal action was conducted to remove the UST and associated petroleum contaminated soil. In 1994, three former gasoline USTs were removed in a non-CERCLA action and replaced with aboveground storage tanks. Approximately 340 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed during the UST removal. In 1996, sediment and sludge inside a leaching well was removed in a CERCLA removal action, however the leaching well and associated discharge pipes were not removed because they are partly buried behind Building 5202 and it was determined that the leaching well and discharge pipes did not pose a future source of soil and/or groundwater contamination. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-4 (CS-4) Site Location and History Chemical Spill-4 (CS-4) is located in the southern section of the MMR within the outline of the CS-10 groundwater plume as shown on Figure 4. CS-4 consists of two parcels whose coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 859012, 243969; 859939, 243607; 860065, 243369; 859920, 243079; 859234, 243403; and 859012, 243969 for parcel A; 858358, 241466; 858018, 241673; 858913, 243535; 859230, 243395; and 858358, 241466 for parcel B. The area CS-4 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates. CS-4 is a 28 acre area to the northeast of West Truck Road and Gaffney Road which contained a former gasoline station, and is an area south of Gaffney Road which contained a former storage yard of the Defense Property Disposal Office which operated from 1965 to 1985. Military vehicles were maintained by the U.S. Army from 1940 to 1946 and by the U.S. Air Force from 1955 to 1973. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities Initial investigations in 1986 and 1988 identified petroleum-related and chlorinated solvent contaminated soil and sediment in the area known as West Truck Road Motorpool which is South of Truck and Gaffney Roads. An engineering evaluation/cost analysis report to address this contaminated soil in the West Truck Road Motorpool area was prepared in May 1993. Investigations for the area to the northeast of West Truck and Gaffney Roads were conducted in 1994, 1996, and 2001. The investigation activities included: ten test pits; surface and surface soil samples; installation of one monitoring well; and groundwater samples. Investigations indicated that pesticides and inorganics were detected in soil and required action. Shallow groundwater sample results did not indicate contamination requiring action. An engineering evaluation/cost analysis report was conducted to evaluate removal action alternatives to address the contaminated soil in the area to the northeast of West Truck Road and Gaffney Road. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A non-time critical removal Action Memorandum for the West Truck Road Motorpool documented the soil removal and treatment in 1994. Investigations concluded that soil which was contaminated with volatile organic compounds had a major source of the CS-4 groundwater plume and was a continuing threat to the groundwater due to leaching. The Site Inspection Report concluded that: dieldrin, chromium, cadmium, cyanide, lead, and zinc posed a human health and ecological risk. An Action Memorandum for CS-4 was issued in January 2002. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards By 1984, six 5,000 gallon underground storage tanks were removed in non-CERCLA actions. In 1994, approximately 11,000 cubic yards (13,235 tons) of contaminated soil from the South Truck Road Motor Pool was removed in a CERCLA non-time critical removal action. The soil was treated on-base in a low temperature thermal desorption system. The removal action cleanup standards were: 0.005 mg/kg for benzene (leaching to groundwater); 0.005 mg/kg for trichloroethylene (leaching to groundwater); and 0.005 mg/kg for perchloroethylene (leaching to groundwater). A removal action report was issued in September 1999. In 2002, approximately 2,600 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the area northeast of West Truck Road and Gaffney Road was removed in a CERCLA removal action and transported off-site for treatment and/or disposal. During this removal action, a 500-gallon underground storage tank with 275 gallons of diesel fuel were discovered and also removed. The removal action cleanup standards were: 99 mg/kg for Lead (ecological); 68 mg/kg for Zinc (ecological); 1.0 mg/kg for Arochlor 1260 (human health); 0.227 mg/kg for 4,4'-DDE (ecological); 0.25 mg/kg for 4,4'-DDT (ecological); 0.035 mg/kg for Dieldrin (ecological); 200 mg/kg for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons; 1000 mg/kg (0-15 ft bgs)/5,000 mg/kg (greater than 15 ft bgs) for C 9 -C 18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons; 2,500 mg/kg (0-15 ft bgs)/5,000 mg/kg (greater than 15 ft bgs) for C 19 -C 36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons; 200 mg/kg (0-15 ft bgs)/200 mg/kg (greater than 15 ft bgs) for C 11 -C 22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons; 100 mg/kg (0-15 ft bgs)/500 mg/kg (greater than 15 ft. bgs) for C 5 -C 8 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons; 1,000 mg/kg (0-15 ft bgs)/5,000 mg/kg (greater than 15 ft bgs) for C 9 -C 12 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons; and 100 mg/kg (0-15 ft. bgs)/100 mg/kg (greater than 15 ft bgs) for C 9 -C 10 Aromatic Hydrocarbons. The removal action for CS-4 was documented in a removal action report which was issued in September 2005. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-4 (U.S. Coast Guard)/Fuel Spill-1 (U.S. Coast Guard) (CS-4 (CG)/FS-1 (CG)) Site Location and History Chemical Spill-4 U.S. Coast Guard/Fuel Spill-1 U.S. Coast Guard (CS-4 (CG)/FS-1 (CG)) is located in the southern section of the MMR, as shown in Figure 5 within the outline of the CS-10 groundwater plume. CS-4 (CG)/FS-1

(CG)coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 867997, 238955; 868394, 238660; 868369, 238629; 868310, 238672; 868211, 238546; 868145, 238601; 868132, 238555; 867975, 238349; 867671, 238576; and 867997, 238955. The area CS-4 (CG)/FS-1

(CG)proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates. CS-4 (CG)/FS-1

(CG)is a five-acre area which featured Hangar Building 128 and its surrounding area. From 1955 to 1970, Hangar 128 was used to maintain U.S. Air Force EC-121 (i.e., Super-Constellation) aircraft. During that time, unknown quantities of solvents (i.e., toluene and TCE) and aviation gasoline washed into the stormwater drainage system. From 1976 to 1988, Hangar was used by the USCG to maintain fixed-wing aircraft. In 1978, two spills occurred at the hangar. An aviation gasoline spill of approximately 1,000 gallons occurred on the tarmac on the northern side of the hangar and was washed into the stormwater drainage system. The second aviation gasoline spill of approximately 250 gallons occurred on the southern side of the hangar and was washed onto surrounding soil. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities The site was first investigated in 1993, then in 1995, a follow-up investigation occurred. The soil and groundwater investigation focused on the areas of the reported spills and an acid leaching pit on the western side of the hangar. Groundwater did not require action, however contaminated soil was recommended for a removal action. A site investigation was completed in 1993 and identified pesticides as the contaminant of concern as there were no herbicides detected. The investigation activities included: ten test pits; surface and surface soil samples; installation of one monitoring well; and groundwater samples. Investigations indicated that pesticides and inorganics were detected in soil and required action. Groundwater sample results did not indicate contamination requiring action. An engineering evaluation/cost analysis was conducted to evaluate removal action alternatives. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The Site Inspection Report concluded that: Dieldrin, Chromium, Cadmium, cyanide, lead, and zinc posed a human health and ecological risk. A multi-site Action Memorandum with CS-4 (CG)/FS-1

(CG)as one of the sites was issued in 1999. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards By August 2001, approximately 318 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated and transported off-site for disposal. The removal action cleanup standards were: 0.035 mg/kg for Dieldrin (ecological); 19 mg/kg for Chromium (ecological); 1.8 mg/kg for Cadmium (ecological); 1.0 mg/kg for cyanide (background); 99 mg/kg for lead (ecological); 68 mg/kg for zinc (ecological). The removal action for CS-4 (CG)/FS-1

(CG)was documented in a removal action report which was issued in April 2004. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-5 (CS-5) Site Location and History Chemical Spill-5 (CS-5) is located in the Cantonment section of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4, within the footprint of the CS-10 groundwater plume. CS-5 coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 857269, 242122; 857465, 242403; 857647, 242423; 857839, 242306; 857906, 242189; 857850, 242105; 857797, 242082; 857664, 241877; and 857269, 242122. The area CS-5 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates. CS-5 is a five-acre area adjacent to Building 3461 which was used as a weapons repair shop from 1941 to 1946, and a refueler maintenance and spray paint shop from 1955 to 1967. Releases from the building's activities (i.e., oils, solvents, paints, fuel, etc) may be contributed to site contamination. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A soil, sediment, and groundwater investigation was completed in October 1993. In 1996, as part of a basewide drainage structure removal program, a leaching well at CS-5 was removed, and a wash rack was decontaminated and abandoned in place by concrete. Groundwater did not require action, however contaminated soil was recommended for a removal action. Investigations were conducted in 1993 and 1995, and identified polychlorinated biphenyl soil contamination which required cleanup. A preliminary assessment was completed in 1999 and identified petroleum-contaminated soil requiring action. In the spring of 2000, a non-CERCLA removal action was conducted, then the site was further investigated in 2001. Seventeen additional surface soil and subsurface soil samples were collected at the area of the previous excavation as well as debris piles at the site. The site investigation and risk evaluation for human health and ecological risk concluded that a removal action was needed to address metals, petroleum and polynuclear-aromatic hydrocarbon contamination. Prior to the removal action, an additional 95 soil samples were collected at 47 locations. An engineering evaluation/cost analysis was conducted to evaluate removal action alternatives. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The Site Inspection Report concluded that Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(b)anthracene, Benzo(k)anthracene, Benzo(k)anthracene, Benzo(g,h,i)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, and Phenanthrene posed a human health and ecological risk. A multi-site Action Memorandum with CS-5 as one of the sites was issued in 1999. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards By May 2001, approximately 86 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated and transported off-site for disposal. The removal action cleanup standards were: 5 mg/kg for Benzo(a)anthracene; 5 mg/kg for Benzo(b)anthracene; 5 mg/kg for Benzo(k)anthracene; 5 mg/kg for Benzo(k)anthracene; 5 mg/kg for Benzo(g,h,i)anthracene; 5 mg/kg for Benzo(a)pyrene; 0.625 mg/kg for Chrysene; 5 mg/kg for Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene; 7.81 mg/kg for Fluoranthene; 5 mg/kg for Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene; and 0.625 mg/kg for Phenanthrene. The removal action for CS-5 was documented in a removal action report which was issued in April 2004. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-6/Fuel Spill-22 (CS-6/FS-22) Site Location and History CS-6/FS-22 is a nine-acre area located in Cantonment area of MMR, as shown in Figure 4. The coordinates for CS-6 in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 860916, 237702; 861142, 238157; 861650, 237928; 861426, 237463; and 860916, 237702. The coordinates for FS-22 in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 862327, 247882; 862853, 247110; 862794, 246747; 862334, 247011; 861977, 247666; 861907, 248078; and 862327, 247882. The area CS-6/FS-22 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and existing structures at CS-6 within these coordinates. CS-6/FS-22 includes Building 754 and the area immediately surrounding it which has been used as a vehicle maintenance shop since 1967. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities CS-6/FS-22 was identified in a records search in 1986. CS-6 includes structures and features functioned as three waste discharge points including a former oil/water separator, a leaching well, and paved areas draining to the drainage structures or site perimeters. FS-22 is a drainage ditch located south of and adjacent to CS-6 where in 1984 a 4,500 gallon fuel spill resulted in a discharge of fuel to the drainage ditch. Subsurface soil samples were collected during a sump investigation program and confirmed that the drainage structures have not caused any soil contamination since results were below action limits. Groundwater immediately downgradient of these structures was also not impacted. A Site Inspection investigation was conducted between November 1992 and March 1993. The investigation included surface soil sampling and subsurface soil sampling at four areas, and groundwater sampling at upgradient and downgradient locations. A follow-up investigation was conducted in October 1994. Additional groundwater sampling in October 1998 supported that the site did not impact groundwater quality. Sampling in the drainage ditch (FS-22) confirmed the presence of fuel constituents but concentrations were below action levels. No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the form of a non-CERCLA spill response and soil removal action, investigation data, and a tiered human health and ecological risk evaluation support no further action. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in April 2000. No risks requiring action are present at CS-6/FS-22 and no institutional controls are required. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1984, a 4,500 gallon fuel spill occurred in a drainage ditch associated with FS-22. All free product was removed and visibly contaminated soil was excavated in a non-CERCLA action. In 1989, piping between an oil/water separator and a leaching well was sealed. The leaching well was filled with sand. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-6 (U.S. Coast Guard) (CS-6 (CG)) Site Location and History CS-6

(CG)is located in the south-central portion of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 854635, 241470; 854816, 241814; 855350, 241395; 855074, 241085; 855015, 241118; and 854635, 241470. The area CS-6

(CG)proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and existing structures within these coordinates. CS-6

(CG)is a six-acre area which includes U.S. Coast Guard Building 5215 in which maintenance shops have been housed since 1973. Prior to 1973, the building was used as a Noncommissioned Officers Club. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities CS-6

(CG)was identified in a records search in 1986. CS-6

(CG)consists of the U.S. Coast Guard Building 5215 which houses maintenance shops. Wastes generated included oils, hydraulic fluid, and cleaning solvents. A 2,000 gallon underground storage tank and two aboveground storage tanks were noted at the site in an investigation in 1989. Surface soil results collected in 1989 indicated minor fuel spills in the area around the former above ground storage tanks. Subsequent soil sampling in 1999 confirmed that the soil removal was complete. Groundwater sampling results show that site activities have not adversely affected the groundwater quality. No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the form of non-CERCLA removal actions and investigation data support no further action. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in June 2000. No further risks are present at CS-6

(CG)and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In September 1990, approximately six cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed in a non-CERCLA action after the removal of two above ground storage tanks. In May 1993, a 2,000 gallon UST was removed in a non-CERCLA action. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-8/Fuel Spill-21 (CS-8/FS-21) Site Location and History CS-8/FS-21 are located next to each other in a three-acre area which is located in the Cantonment portion of the MMR, as shown in Figure 5. CS-8 coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 862819, 237371; 862971, 237301; 862846, 237023; 862693, 237087; and 862819, 237371. FS-21 coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 862970, 237301; 863140, 237224; 862980, 236868; 862813, 236946; and 862970, 237301. The area CS-8/FS-21 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and existing structures within these coordinates. CS-8 is known as the Operational Motor Pool. It included an active and an abandoned concrete wash pad, a cesspool, and a 12,500 gallon diesel-fuel UST and pump island located west of a vehicle repair shop. The vehicle repair shop ceased operations in 1998. FS-21 is the former location of a 5,000 gallon motor vehicle gasoline UST known as Current Product Tank No. 90. Wastes generated included waste solvents, oils, battery electrolyte, and fuels. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities CS-8/FS-21 was initially identified in a records search in 1986. Site investigations were developed to evaluate whether past maintenance activities, waste-disposal methods, and potential leaks from USTs posed a risk and required action. Investigation efforts, which included a soil-gas survey, ten test pits, six soil boring, four monitoring wells, soil samples, and groundwater samples, showed no significant contamination of soil or groundwater. Investigation confirmed that the UST removals were complete. Risks to human health and the environment from exposure to detections were below levels requiring action. No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the form of non-CERCLA removal actions and investigation data support no further action. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in October 2000. No risks requiring action are present at CS-8/FS-21, and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1988, a 5,000 gallon motor vehicle gasoline UST and a 12,500 gallon diesel fuel UST were removed in a non-CERCLA action and replaced with double-walled tanks of the same size. The 5,000 gallon UST and the 12,500 gallon UST were removed in a non-CERCLA action in 1996 and 1999, respectively. In 1996, a cesspool was removed in a CERCLA removal action as part of a basewide drainage structure removal program. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-8 (U.S. Coast Guard) (CS-8 (CG)) Site Location and History CS-8

(CG)is located in the northern section of the MMR, as shown in Figure 3. CS-8

(CG)is a collection of three parcels whose coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 871484, 261883; 871510, 261938; 871570, 261911; 871544, 261854; and 871484, 261883 for parcel A; 872536, 261718; 872655, 261718; 872655, 261582; 872536, 261582; and 872536, 261718 for parcel B; 872547, 260877; 872645, 260877; 872645, 260751; 872547, 260751; and 872547, 260877 for parcel C. The area CS-8

(CG)proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. CS-8

(CG)is a less than one-acre area (400 square feet) known as the Abandoned Radio Cabinet Area on the Coast Guard Transmitter Station property near the eastern boundary of the MMR. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities CS-8

(CG)was investigated with a Preliminary Assessment in 1999 and a Site Investigation

(SI)in 2001. The SI included the collection of soil samples which identified soil contamination within the vicinity of the radio cabinet. Human health and ecological risks were evaluated and the SI concluded that a removal action was necessary to address these risks. An engineering evaluation/cost analysis was conducted to evaluate removal action alternatives. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The Site Inspection Report concluded that cadmium, manganese and PCB-1254 posed a human health and ecological risk. An Action Memorandum documenting this non-time critical removal action was finalized in August 2002. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In December 2002, approximately 25 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed and transported off-site for disposal in a CERCLA removal action. The removal action cleanup standards were: 1.8 mg/kg for cadmium; 274 mg/kg for manganese; and 1 mg/kg for PCB-1254 (Arochlor 1254). The removal action for CS-8

(USCG)was documented in a removal action report which was issued in August 2003. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-9 (CS-9) Site Location and History CS-9 is located in the Cantonment portion of the MMR adjacent to the Landfill-1 source area, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 856956, 244929; 857918, 246417; 858598, 245943; 858240, 245412; 858123, 245484; 857508, 244681; and 856956, 244929. The area CS-9 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. CS-9 is a 22-acre area which featured a former motor pool and vehicle maintenance area which was used from 1941 to 1946 and had five leaching wells, four sumps, and three underground storage tanks. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A site investigation was conducted in 1993. Fifteen test pits were excavated and stockpiled at a separate site. Soil and sump sediment samples were collected. Two monitoring wells were installed to evaluate the groundwater quality. The subsurface soil and groundwater data indicated that motor pool-related compounds have not migrated vertically within the site. Groundwater results from the investigation showed low levels of fuel- and solvent type compounds that are likely migrating from upgradient LF-1 rather than CS-9. Results of risk evaluations suggested no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment. No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the form of non-CERCLA removal actions and investigation data support no further action. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in June 1998. No further risks are present at CS-9 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards Three USTs were removed in a non-CERCLA action in 1985. In March 1994, sump structures and contents, and contaminated soil were removed in a CERLCA removal action. Approximately 3,663 tons of soil was treated between August and October 1995 at a low-temperature thermal treatment unit which was located at MMR for another project. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-11 (CS-11) Site Location and History Chemical Spill-11 (CS-11) is located in the southern section of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4 within the outline of the CS-10 groundwater plume. CS-11 coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 859381, 238984; 859576, 238898; 859476, 238677; 859280, 238764; and 859381, 238984. The area CS-11 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates. CS-11 is a one-acre area associated with Building 1116 which was used for the storage and mixing of pesticides and herbicides from 1970 to 1983. Mixing of pesticides occurred on an asphalt concrete pad on the eastern side of Building 1116. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A site investigation was completed in 1993 and identified pesticides as the contaminant of concern as there were no herbicides detected. The investigation activities included: Ten test pits; surface and surface soil samples; installation of one monitoring well; and groundwater samples. Investigations indicated that pesticides and inorganics were detected in soil and required action. Groundwater sample results did not indicate contamination requiring action. An engineering evaluation/cost analysis was conducted to evaluate removal action alternatives. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The Site Inspection Report concluded that: Dieldrin, Chromium, Cadmium, cyanide, lead, and zinc posed a human health and ecological risk. A multi-site Action Memorandum with CS-11 as one of the sites was issued in June 1999. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1983, when the pesticide shop was closed, approximately 200 pounds of pesticides were removed in a non-CERCLA action from Building 1116. In 2002, approximately 1,157 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed in a CERCLA removal action and transported off-site for treatment and/or disposal. The removal action cleanup standards were: 0.035 mg/kg for Dieldrin (ecological); 19 mg/kg for Chromium (ecological); 1.8 mg/kg for Cadmium (ecological); 1.0 mg/kg for cyanide (background); 99 mg/kg for lead (ecological); 68 mg/kg for zinc (ecological). The removal action for CS-11 was documented in a removal action report which was issued in April 2004. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-14 (CS-14) Site Location and History CS-14 is located in the southeastern portion of MMR within the secure flightline area, as shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 867564, 238219; 867679, 238124; 867451, 237847; 867335, 237946; and 867564, 238219. The area CS-14 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates. CS-14 is a one-acre area associated with subsurface structures between Building 156 and Hangar 158. These structures received liquid waste such as solvents and petroleum products from these buildings. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities CS-14 was identified in a records search as a site requiring additional investigation based on site history in 1986. Field investigations were conducted between 1989 and 1992, and additional groundwater samples were collected in 1999. Investigation activities included a soil gas survey, installation and multiple sampling of three groundwater wells, advancement of 12 Terraprobe borings and two test trenches, and soil sampling and analysis. Exploration locations were based on the findings of the records search and the observations of conditions. Soil sampling and analysis was conducted during the completion of test pits, soil borings, and monitoring wells. There were no detections of surface or subsurface soil samples above action levels for VOCs, SVOCs, Pesticides, PCBs, and inorganics. Groundwater sampling also did not identify any actionable contamination as results were below action levels. No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the form of a CERCLA removal action were conducted as part of the basewide drainage structure removal program, and no human health or ecological risk was identified in a risk evaluation. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings Due to the non-CERCLA response actions and the investigation findings of no risk, a No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in June 2000. No further risks are present at CS-14 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1996, the leaching pit area was removed in a CERCLA removal action as part of a basewide drainage structure removal program. The oil/water separator associated with Hangar 158 and the sand/gas trap associated with Building 156 was abandoned in 1989. The oil/water separator was decontaminated in place and filled with concrete. Building 156 continues to be used as an aircraft parts maintenance facility with wastes managed according to the appropriate regulations. Hangar 158 continues to be used as an aircraft maintenance facility. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-15 (CS-15) Site Location and History CS-15, Former Run-up Area, is located on the southeast side of MMR, on Reilly Road, as shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 869859, 236971; 870462, 237541; 870880, 237294; 870809, 237171; 870285, 236746; 870193, 236734; 870112, 236759; and 869859, 236971. The area CS-15 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. CS-15 was used for jet engine testing from 1949 until 1985. This nine-acre site consisted for former Building 202, an outside testing stand, former Building 204, and enclosed testing stand, and the area surrounding these buildings. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities CS-15 was identified in a records search as a site requiring additional investigation based on site history in 1986. Four field investigations were conducted between 1989 and 1995, and additional groundwater samples were collected in April 2000. Exploration locations were based on the findings of the records search and the observations of conditions. Three monitoring wells were installed. Soil sampling and analysis was conducted during the completion of test pits, soil borings, and monitoring wells. There were no detections of surface or subsurface soil samples above action levels for VOCs, SVOCs, Pesticides, PCBs, and inorganics. Groundwater sampling also did not identify any actionable contamination. No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the form of a CERCLA removal actions were conducted as part of the basewide drainage structure removal program. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings Due to the response actions conducted under the drainage structure removal program in 1996, a No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in December 2001. No further risks are present at CS-15 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1994, three hanging transformers west of Building 204 were removed when Buildings 202 and 204 were demolished. In 1996, a gasoline trap east of Building 204 was removed as part of a CERCLA removal action known as the basewide drainage structure removal program. During the removal of the gas trap, approximately 74 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed and treated at an on-base asphalt batching facility. There are no remaining structures at CS-15. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-16/Chemical Spill-17/Drum Disposal Operable Unit (CS-16/CS-17/DDOU) Site Location and History CS-16/CS-17/DDOU is located in the southern section of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. CS-16/CS-17 coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 859039, 234905; 860401, 235488; 861416, 235483; 861432, 235364; 862700, 234602; 862795, 234287; 862364, 233663; and 859039, 234905. The area CS-16/CS-17 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates. Drum Disposal Operable Unit

(DDOU)is located in the southern section of the MMR within the boundaries of CS-16/CS-17, as shown in Figure 4, near the southeastern boundary. DDOU coordinates in Northing and Easting coordinates (NAD27) are: 862171, 244565; 862239, 234517; 862283, 234583; 862447, 234461; 862328, 234283; 862098, 234456; and 862171, 234565. The area DDOU proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. CS-16/CS-17 is an 80-acre area which featured infiltration sand filter and sludge drying beds which are associated with a former, on-base sewage treatment plant which was decommissioned in 1997. Treated effluent from the treatment plant was discharged to these beds and contamination was suspected to have been caused by discharge of wastes from on-base operations. The former sewage treatment plant was replaced with an upgraded plant, and discharge effluent is piped off-site to new sand filter beds located near the Cape Cod Canal. Drum Disposal Operable Unit

(DDOU)was a one-acre area where a total of 11 drums were discovered during investigation activities at CS-16/CS-17. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities CS-16/CS-17 was investigated several times beginning with a site investigation in 1987. This investigation included the collection of surface soil and sludge samples from the active, inactive and abandoned sludge drying beds, and the collection of groundwater samples. In 1990, another site investigation included eleven soil borings with installation of selected monitoring wells and 31 soil samples. In the remedial investigation which was conducted in 1990 and 1994, CS-16/CS-17 was divided into seven areas for investigation: Active sand filter beds; inactive sand filter beds; abandoned sand filter beds; active sludge drying beds; inactive sludge drying beds; abandoned sludge drying beds; and former sewage sludge disposal area. Surface and subsurface soil sampling found that three of the seven areas contained contaminants which posed an ecological risk because of metals contamination. A Feasibility Study was conducted to evaluate remedial action alternatives which ranged from no action to containment to excavation. The DDOU was discovered in 1994 during remedial investigation activities as CS-16/CS-17. Based on the presences of drums, two surface soil samples were collected. A separate investigation was conducted and included 24 shallow soil borings and collection of soil samples for field screening of pesticides and confirmatory analysis, 4 deep soil borings as monitoring wells and groundwater samples, ten additional surface soil samples and groundwater sampling. The investigation identified two areas containing DDT in high concentrations 3,600 mg/kg and 4.1 mg/kg in areas one and two, respectively. None of the four monitoring wells contained any detectable concentrations of pesticides. A risk evaluation summary concluded that site concentrations exceeded risk-based levels and a removal action was necessary. An engineering evaluation/cost analysis for DDOU was conducted to evaluate removal action alternatives. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The Remedial Investigation Report for CS-16/CS-17 concluded that: Arochlor 1254; Dieldrin; Arsenic; chromium; Copper; lead; and Zinc posed an ecological risk and impact to groundwater risk. A ROD was issued in May 1999. The Site Inspection Report for DDOU concluded that: 2-Chlorophenol; 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene; 2,4-Dinitrotoluene; pentachlorophenol; phenanthrene; 4,4'-DDD; 4,4'-DDE; 4,4'DDT; Alpha-BHC; arsenic; chromium; lead; vanadium; and zinc posed a human health and ecological risk. A multi-site Action Memorandum with DDOU as one of the sites was issued in June 1999. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1994, eleven drums were discovered and removed in a non-CERLCA action at DDOU. In 2002, approximately 213 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed in a CERCLA removal action and transported off-site for incineration. The removal action cleanup standards were: 330 mg/kg for 2-Chlorophenol (ecological); 9,250 mg/kg for 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (human); 330 mg/kg for 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (human); 800 mg/kg for pentachlorophenol (human/ecological); 0.625 mg/kg for phenanthrene (ecological); 2.41 mg/kg for 4,4'-DDD (ecological); 0.227 mg/kg for 4,4'-DDE (ecological); 0.250 mg/kg for 4,4'DDT (ecological); 0.203 mg/kg for Alpha-BHC (ecological); 7.1 mg/kg for arsenic (ecological); 19 mg/kg for chromium (ecological); 99 mg/kg for lead; 47 mg/kg for vanadium; and 68 mg/kg for zinc. The removal action for DDOU was documented in a removal action report which was issued in April 2004. In 2001, excavation activities under the CERCLA action authorities were completed. A total of 4,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed and transported off-site for disposal. The remedial action cleanup standards were: 1.00 mg/kg for Arochlor 1254 (ecological); 0.035 mg/kg for Dieldrin (ecological); 7.10 mg/kg for Arsenic (ecological); 19 mg/kg for chromium (ecological); 61 mg/kg for Copper (ecological); 99 mg/kg for lead (ecological); and 68 mg/kg for Zinc (ecological). The remedial action for CS-16/CS-17 was documented in a remedial action report which was issued in April 2003. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Chemical Spill-22 (CS-22) Site Location and History CS-22 is located in the northern section of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. CS-22 coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 862327, 247882; 862853, 247110; 862794, 246747; 862334, 247011; 861977, 247666; 861907, 248078; and 862327, 247882. The area CS-22 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. CS-22 is a 13-acre area near the east-central portion of MMR which was a former sand and gravel pit. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A preliminary assessment was completed in 1999 and identified petroleum-contaminated soil requiring action. In spring 2000, a non-CERCLA removal action was conducted. The site was further investigated in 2001. Seventeen additional surface soil and subsurface soil samples were collected at the area of the previous excavation as well as debris piles at the site. The site investigation and risk evaluation for human health and ecological risk concluded that a removal action was needed to address metals, petroleum and polynuclear-aromatic hydrocarbon contamination. Prior to the removal action, an additional 95 soil samples were collected at 47 locations. An engineering evaluation/cost analysis was conducted to evaluate removal action alternatives. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The Site Inspection Report concluded that aluminum, arsenic, chromium, lead, selenium, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, petroleum hydrocarbons, and tetrachloroethylene posed a human health and ecological risk, and impact to groundwater risk. An Action Memorandum documenting this non-time critical removal action was finalized in August 2002. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In Spring 2000, approximately 418 tons of petroleum contaminated soil was removed in a non-CERCLA action and transported off-site for disposal. In 2002, approximately 440 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed in a CERCLA removal action and transported off-site for disposal. The removal action cleanup standards were: 8,900 mg/kg for aluminum (ecological); 3.6 mg/kg for arsenic (human); 19 mg/kg for chromium (ecological); 99 mg/kg for lead (ecological); 1.0 mg/kg for selenium (ecological); 0.7 mg/kg for benzo(a)anthracene (human); 0.625 mg/ kg (0-2 ft bgs) and 0.7 mg/kg (2-15 ft bgs) for benzo(a)pyrene (human/ecological); 0.7 mg/kg for benzo(b)fluoranthene (human); 0.7 mg/kg for dibenz(a,h)anthracene (human); 0.7 mg/kg for Indeno(1,2,3,-c,d)pyrene (human); 200 mg/kg for total petroleum hydrocarbons (human/impact to groundwater) (Aliphatic—100 mg/kg for C 5 -C 8 ; 1,000 mg/kg for C 9 -C 12 ; 1,000 mg/kg for C 13 -C 18 ; 2,500 mg/kg for C 19 -C 36 ; and Aromatic—100 mg/kg for C 9 -C 10 ; and 200 mg/kg for C 11 -C 22 ); and 10 ug/kg for tetrachloroethylene (impact to groundwater). The removal action for CS-22 was documented in a removal action report which was issued in July 2003. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-2 (FS-2) Site Location and History FS-2 is a seven-acre area located in the Cantonment area of the MMR near its southern boundary, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 856255, 237383; 857124, 237257; 857125, 236889; 857250, 237016; and 856255, 237383. The area FS-2 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. FS-2 was originally used for unloading and distributing jet fuel and aviation gasoline. The area contains one main-line railroad track and several rail sidings. Before decommissioning, the site contained a petroleum unloading rack, a pump house and associated underground piping. The unloading facility was taken out of service in 1965. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities FS-2 was first investigated in 1985 with the excavation of 18 test pits and installation of two monitoring wells. A soil gas survey and soil sampling at two test pits and four soil borings were completed in 1989. One monitoring well was installed in each of the four borings. Based on the investigations which were conducted in 1985 and 1989, an RI Report which was issued in 1991 recommended removing contaminated soil since historical fuel spills had caused near-surface soil stains and contributed to the petroleum contamination of shallow soil near the pump house and a monitoring well. A supplemental RI was carried out in April 2000 to investigate the extent of any remaining petroleum contamination in the surface and subsurface soil since a non-CERCLA removal action was conducted in 1996. Petroleum-related semivolatile organic compounds and metals were detected in soil and groundwater samples. However, the concentrations were below action levels, and did not pose a human health or ecological risk. No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the form of non-CERCLA removal actions were conducted and the supplemental RI concluded that there were no risks. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings Due to the response action and the supplemental remedial investigation which concluded that there were no site risks, a No Further Action Record of Decision was finalized in February 2002. No further risks are present at FS-2 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1992, the header piping which was part of the fuel distribution system was removed. In 1996, approximately 520 tons of soil was removed in a non-CERCLA action, and treated at an on-base low-temperature thermal treatment system. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-4 (FS-4) Site Location and History FS-4 is located in the Cantonment area of the MMR near its southern boundary, as shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 865858, 238266; 866000, 238149; 865712, 237788; 865665, 237768; 865601, 237779; 865481, 237925; and 865858, 238266. The area FS-4 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. FS-4 is a two-acre area around the former Building 178 and a fuel pumphouse with five underground storage tanks which were located on the base airfield. From the late 1950s until the early 1970s, aviation gasoline was pumped to the pumphouse and the tanks from an area known as the Petroleum Fuels Storage Area. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities FS-4 was first evaluated as part of a records search in 1985. The records search identified the presence of underground storage tanks. In October 1993, a site investigation was conducted which included two monitoring wells, one soil boring, and 30 soil gas samples. Although this report recommended no further action, residual fuel contamination was identified beneath several USTs based on qualitative photoionization detector results following the removal and upgrade of the fuel systems at FS-4 in 1994. An engineering evaluation/cost analysis was conducted and alternatives included sampling and subsurface treatment of contaminated soils by biosparging/soil vapor extraction. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A multi-site Action Memorandum with FS-4 as one of the sites was finalized in 1999 and selected subsurface soil sampling to determine if biosparging/soil vapor extraction was needed to address risks from contaminants leaching to groundwater. During remedial design, soil sampling results demonstrated that concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes were below cleanup levels, and installation of the treatment system was unnecessary. No further risks are present at FS-4 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1993, as part of the Fuel Systems Upgrade program, the five underground storage tanks along with a 25,000 gallon underground storage tank were removed in a non-CERCLA action. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-7 (FS-7) Site Location and History Fuel Spill-7 (FS-7) is located in the Cantonment section of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4, within the footprint of the CS-10 groundwater plume. FS-7 coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 860315, 243139; 860098, 243122; 860089, 243224; 860287, 243236; and 860315, 243139. The area FS-7 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. FS-7 consisted of a half-acre area in the vicinity of the former Building 1820. A 500-gallon underground storage tank was installed in 1970 to store No. 2 fuel oil. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A site investigation was completed in 1993. Investigation activities included: soil gas samples; surface and subsurface soil samples; and installation of one monitoring well. The site investigation concluded that surface soil was impacted by polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. A follow-up investigation was conducted in 1995. Investigation activities included: test pitting; soil sampling from test pit and surface soil; installation of two soil borings for monitoring wells; and groundwater samples. This investigation confirmed the polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon contamination and concluded that detections in groundwater were from another nearby site. An engineering evaluation/cost analysis was conducted to evaluate removal action alternatives. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The Site Inspection Report concluded that Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(b)anthracene, Benzo(k)anthracene, Benzo(k)anthracene, Benzo(g,h,i)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene, and Phenanthrene posed a human health and ecological risk. A multi-site Action Memorandum with FS-7 as one of the sites was issued in 1999. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1985, a 500-gallon underground storage tank was removed in a non-CERCLA action. In April 2001, approximately 18 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated in a CERCLA removal action and transported for off-site disposal. The removal action cleanup standards were: 5 mg/kg for Benzo(a)anthracene; 5 mg/kg for Benzo(b)anthracene; 5 mg/kg for Benzo(k)anthracene; 5 mg/kg for Benzo(k)anthracene; 5 mg/kg for Benzo(g,h,i)anthracene; 5 mg/kg for Benzo(a)pyrene; 0.625 mg/kg for Chrysene; 5 mg/kg for Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene; 7.81 mg/kg for Fluoranthene; 5 mg/kg for Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene; and 0.625 mg/kg for Phenanthrene. The removal action for FS-7 was documented in a removal action report which was issued in April 2004. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-9 (FS-9) Site Location and History Fuel Spill-9 (FS-9) is located in the south central portion of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4, within the footprint of the CS-10 groundwater plume. FS-9 coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 858342, 241473; 858076, 240908; 857678, 241088; 857748, 241225; 858005, 241279; 858146, 241586; and 858342, 241473. The area FS-9 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates. FS-9 is a four-acre area consisting of a motor pool which operated from 1941 until 1986 and an undeveloped vegetated portion. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities The site was initially investigated in 1992. In 1998, a remedial investigation was completed over five areas at FS-9: the motor pool and fueling island and underground storage tanks; the leaching wells and catch basins; the waste disposal area; the drainage ditch/swale area; and the pond/wet area. Total petroleum hydrocarbons and several metals, chromium, lead, vanadium and zinc, were identified as the contaminants of concern posing human health and ecological risks. A Feasibility Study evaluated alternatives which ranged from no action to excavation with soil treatment and disposal options. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The Remedial Investigation Report concluded that total petroleum hydrocarbons, chromium, lead, vanadium, and zinc posed human health and ecological risks, and a threat to leaching to groundwater. A Record of Decision was finalized in June 1999. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1994, three underground storage tanks and associated contaminated soil were removed in a non-CERCLA action as part of the Fuel Systems Upgrade Program. In 1996, waste disposal leaching wells and a catch basin were removed in a CERCLA removal action as part of a basewide drainage structure removal program. The leaching well adjacent to Building 1369 was abandoned in place due to structural concerns relative to the building. In 2001, approximately 125 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated and transported off-site for disposal which implemented the selected remedy in the Record of Decision. The remedial action cleanup standards were: 19 mg/kg for chromium (ecological); 300 mg/kg for lead (human); 47 mg/kg for vanadium (ecological); 68 mg/kg for zinc (ecological); and petroleum hydrocarbons (impact to groundwater) (Aliphatic—100 mg/kg for C 5 -C 8 ; 1,000 mg/kg for C 9 -C 12 ; 1,000 mg/kg for C 13 -C 18 ; 2,500 mg/kg for C 19 -C 36 ; and Aromatic—100 mg/kg for C 9 -C 10 ; and 200 mg/kg for C 11 -C 22 ). Sampling during remedial design determined that a contingency remedy for a soil vapor extraction system was not necessary. The remedial action for FS-9 was documented in a remedial action report which was issued in September 2002. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-13 (FS-13) Site Location and History Fuel Spill-13 (FS-13) is known as the Underground Fuel Line Cantonment and is located in the central portion of the MMR within the footprint of the CS-10 groundwater plume as shown in Figure 4. FS-13 coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 860489, 244233; 861055, 243973; 860571, 242911; 860391, 243006; 860283, 243360; 860352, 243494; 860343, 243638; 860260, 243718; and 860489, 244233. The area FS-13 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. FS-13 is a 13-acre open area bounded by several roads near the main rotary on base. A small portion of the site, east of the pipeline and south of North Truck Road extends into the restricted flightline operations area. A fuel spill was reported in 1972. Approximately 2,000 gallons of JP-4 jet fuel were observed at the ground surface during an inspection. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities The site inspection was first conducted in 1996. Investigation activities included: a soil gas survey; trench excavation and soil sampling; soil boring completion and sampling; and monitoring well installation and sampling. Dieldrin and several metals were detected which led to the need for additional investigations. A supplemental site inspection was conducted in 2004. Investigation activities concentrated on previous detections in the subsurface. Ten soil borings were advanced and subsurface soil samples were collected for analysis. Later that year, additional soil samples were collected. In April 2005, a test pit was excavated to assess the mobility of metals and pesticides. Risks to human health and the environment, and risk of soil contaminants leaching to groundwater were evaluated with the remaining site data. The Supplemental Site Inspection Report concluded that contaminants detected above screening levels did not pose a risk because they were at background concentrations or were infrequently detected. No feasibility study was conducted since the Supplemental Site Inspection Report concluded that the site pose risk to human health, environment or groundwater. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The Supplemental Site Inspection Report concluded that did not pose a human health and ecological risks, and a threat to leaching to groundwater. A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in September 2006. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1972, a non-CERCLA removal action was conducted to remove contamination from a spill of 2,000 gallons of JP-4 jet fuel from a pipeline. In April 2005, approximately 14 tons of soil was removed from a test pit in a non-CERCLA removal action. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-14 (FS-14) Site Location and History FS-14 is located in the northern portion of the MMR as shown in Figure 3. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 866044, 270557; 866268, 270558; 866267, 270300; 866047, 270299; and 866044, 270557. The area FS-14 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. FS-14 is a one-acre site where a motor vehicle gasoline fuel spill of approximately 500 gallons occurred in 1985. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities The site was investigated in 1995 to evaluate any remaining contamination from the fuel spill. Surface and subsurface soil and groundwater samples from four newly installed monitoring wells were collected. An additional round of groundwater samples was collected in 1999, and it was determined that the site did not require any further action. No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the form of non-CERCLA removal actions were conducted and the investigations concluded that the site did not pose a risk to human health or the environment. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The risk assessment concluded no significant risk to human health and environment. A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in April 2000. No further risks are present at FS-14 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1985, thirty cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed in a non-CERCLA action immediately following a release of approximately 500 gallons of fuel. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-17 (FS-17) Site Location and History FS-17 was a three and a half-acre site which is located west of the former main base landfill in the south-central portion of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 855913, 246894; 856532, 246671; 856441, 246447; 855816, 246677; and 855913, 246894. The area FS-17 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. FS-17 was a motor pool and vehicle maintenance facility which operated from World War II to 1946. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities FS-17 was investigated in several phases from 1993 through 1998 through investigations and post-excavation sampling events. Surface and subsurface soil samples and groundwater samples from monitoring wells were collected based on the site's history. Data collected during the various investigative and removal activities indicated that minimal to no contamination for surface and subsurface soil, and groundwater, and that the response actions were complete. No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the form of non-CERCLA removal actions were conducted and the RI concluded that there were no risks to human health and the environment. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings Due to the response actions and the remedial investigation which concluded that there were no site risks, a No Further Action Record of Decision was finalized in December 1999. No further risks are present at FS-17 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1994, two underground storage tanks and a fuel pump island were removed in a non-CERCLA action. In 1996, a French drain, leaching well, dry well, vehicle maintenance bays and foundations for two buildings were removed in a CERLCA removal action as part of a basewide drainage structural removal program. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-18 (FS-18) Site Location and History Fuel Spill-18 (FS-18) is located in the south central section of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4, within the footprint of the CS-10 groundwater plume. FS-18 coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 857962, 244410; 859015, 243956; 859046, 243818; 858901, 243531; 858764, 243519; 858706, 243549; 858577, 243379; 858373, 243484; 858511, 243672; 857676, 244076; and 857962, 244410. The area FS-18 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates. FS-18 is a 14-acre site of a former motor pool and fuel transfer station. Four underground storage tanks were installed in 1941, two of which contained diesel fuel and the other two contained motor vehicle gasoline. Three motor pool vehicle maintenance buildings were associated with FS-18. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities Investigations were conducted in 1993 and 1995. The Phase I site investigation activities included installation and sampling of three monitoring wells and 45 soil gas samples. A total of six surface soil and three subsurface soil samples and three rounds of groundwater samples were collected in all investigation phases. The soil investigation and sampling focused on three areas; the drainage course south of the study area and east of South Gaffney Street, a topographic depression west of the study area, and the area around the two former fuel islands and leaching wells. The site investigation and risk evaluation for human health and ecological risk, and risk to groundwater from leaching of soil contaminants concluded that a removal action was needed to address petroleum hydrocarbon contamination in the topographical depression and the drainage swale. An engineering evaluation/cost analysis was conducted to evaluate removal action alternatives. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The Site Inspection Report concluded that Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons posed a risk to groundwater from the leaching of contaminants from soil. A multi-site Action Memorandum with FS-18 as one of the sites was issued in 1999. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1985, two of the four underground storage tanks were removed in a non-CERCLA action. In 1990, the buildings at FS-18 were demolished. In August 1994, the other two underground storage tanks were removed in a non-CERCLA action. In 1996 as part of a basewide drainage structure removal program, a total on nine drainage structures and approximately 430 cubic yards of contaminated soil were removed in a CERCLA removal action. Removal design sampling activities were conducted in 2001 and did not identify any contamination above cleanup levels, so a removal action was not conducted. The removal action cleanup standards for petroleum hydrocarbons (impact to groundwater) were: 100 mg/kg for C 5 -C 8 ; 1,000 mg/kg for C 9 -C 12 ; 1,000 mg/kg for C 13 -C 18 ; 2,500 mg/kg for C 19 -C 36 for Aliphatic hydrocarbons; 100 mg/kg for C 9 -C 10 ; and 200 mg/kg for C 11 -C 22 for Aromatic hydrocarbons. A removal action report which documented the additional soil sampling activities and no further action at FS-18 was issued in April 2004. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-19 (FS-19) Site Location and History FS-19 was a two-acre site which is located in the south-central portion of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 856829, 241507; 856934, 241444; 856734, 241142; 856624, 241206; and 856829, 241507. The area FS-19 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. FS-19 is a one-acre former motor gas fuel storage and transfer point which began operations in 1941 when six 10,000-gallon underground storage tanks were installed and used to store motor gas until 1958. Between the years 1958 to 1965, the six underground storage tanks were used to store hazardous wastes. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities FS-19 was investigated in several phases from 1989 through 1998 through investigations and post-excavation sampling events. Surface and subsurface soil samples and groundwater samples from monitoring wells were collected based on the site's history. Data collected during the various investigative and removal activities indicated that minimal to no contamination for surface and subsurface soil, and groundwater, and that the response actions were complete. No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the form of non-CERCLA removal actions were conducted and the RI concluded that there were no risks to human health and the environment. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings Due to the response actions and the remedial investigation which concluded that there were no site risks, a No Further Action Record of Decision was finalized in December 1999. No further risks are present at FS-19 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1989, six underground storage tanks were removed in a non-CERCLA action. In 1996, a drainage structure and contaminated soil were removed in a CERLCA removal action as part of a basewide drainage structural removal program. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-20 (FS-20) Site Location and History FS-20, former Current Product Tank

(CPT)No. 88, is located in the Cantonment Area of the MMR, as shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 862957, 241292; 863022, 241435; 863119, 241393; 863052, 241251; and 862957, 241292. The area FS-20 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates. FS-20 is a half-acre area which featured former Current Product Tank No. 88 which was a 12,500 gallon underground storage tank that was removed in 1996. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A Phase I Records Search was completed in December 1986. In 1987, the site investigation activities included one test pit and installation of one groundwater monitoring well downgradient of the tank. Analytical results indicated no contamination of soil or groundwater. Investigation concluded that there was no significant potential for contamination and that the site did not pose a risk. No feasibility study was conducted since the site investigation concluded that the site did not impact the soil and groundwater. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in July 1991. No risks are present at FS-20 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1996, the 12,500 gallon underground storage tank was removed in a non-CERCLA action. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-23 (FS-23) Site Location and History FS-23, South Truck Road Fuel Spill, is located in the southern portion of the MMR, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 861731, 237487; 861881, 237420; 861807, 237237; 861652, 237308; and 861731, 237121. The area FS-23 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. FS-23 is a less than one-acre area in which a fuel spill occurred in 1965 when JP-4 leaked onto the ground from a fuel line clean-out valve. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities Following a preliminary assessment in 1986, FS-23 was investigated and characterized during two site inspections in 1988 and 1989, and a groundwater sampling program in 1999. Investigation activities included: a soil gas survey; excavation of test pits; installation of test boring and monitoring wells; and soil and groundwater sampling and analysis. Soil and groundwater sampling detected minimal contamination. Results of the human health and ecological risk assessments suggest that unacceptable levels of risk are not anticipated. No feasibility study was conducted since response actions in the form of non-CERCLA removal actions were conducted and the investigations concluded that the site did not pose a risk to human health or the environment. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings The risk assessment concluded no significant risk to human health and environment. A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in June 2000. No further risks are present at FS-23 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards During the Fuel System Upgrade Program in 1993, two underground 10-inch fuel lines were removed in a non-CERCLA action. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-25 (FS-25) Site Location and History FS-25 is located on the southeast portion of the MMR as shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 866837, 237121; 867004, 237329; 867148, 237217; 866979, 237006; and 866837, 237121. The area FS-25 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils and structures within these coordinates. FS-25 covers approximately one-acre and is located immediately northeast of Building 167. In 1989, petroleum-stained soil was discovered during the construction of a parking lot and 2,000 cubic yards was excavated. The history and cause of the contamination was unknown although the area was reported to have been used for heavy equipment maintenance which may have had spills and releases. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities Investigation of the petroleum-stained soil began with excavation of test pits, completion of soil borings, and soil sampling of the investigation areas in December 1989. With the exception of a small portion of the soil from the excavation, soil data indicated that most of typical fuel compounds have degraded and there was no subsurface soil contamination requiring action. No feasibility study was developed since investigation activities did not identify any contamination in the subsurface. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings Based on sampling results and low-temperature thermal treatment of non-backfilled soil, a No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in June 1997. No further risks are present at FS-25 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In November 1989, approximately 2,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed in a non-CERCLA action and stockpiled on a taxiway of the airfield. In 1996, the stockpiled soil was sampled to determine remaining petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations and to evaluate disposal/reuse options. A majority of this soil was used as backfill, but 88 cubic yards was treated in a low-temperature thermal desorption system which was on-site treating contaminated soil from other projects. A cleanup standard of 1,235 parts per million for total petroleum hydrocarbons was selected. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Fuel Spill-26 (U.S. Coast Guard) (FS-26 (CG)) Site Location and History FS-26

(CG)is located at the intersection of two unnamed paved roads at the southwesterly end of Building 3444 which is a U.S. Coast Guard warehouse, as shown in Figure 4. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 856353, 242055; 856407, 242129; 856499, 242071; 856449, 241997; and 856353, 242055. The area FS-26

(CG)proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. FS-26

(CG)is a less than one-acre former location of a 3,000-gallon underground storage tank which contained No. 2 heating oil and was installed in the early 1950s near Building 3444. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities A soil boring was advanced in the backfilled UST excavation area to assess subsurface contamination. No contamination was detected in these samples. Groundwater samples from a nearby monitoring well also did not detect any site contamination. No feasibility study was developed since investigation activities did not identify any contamination which remained from the UST removal. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in July 1997. No further risks are present at FS-26

(CG)and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1990, a 3,000 gallon underground storage tank and 70 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed under non-CERCLA authority ( *i.e.* , no Action Memorandum was issued). No structures are present at FS-26 (CG). Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Landfill-4 (LF-4) Site Location and History LF-4 is located outside the eastern border of the MMR, as shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 867744, 235225; 867650, 234793; 867382, 234858; 867302, 234920; 867295, 235037; 867351, 235121; 867416, 235321; 867491, 235357; and 867744, 235225. The area LF-4 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. LF-4 is a four-acre, former borrow pit which became an illegal dumping ground because it was located outside the border of the MMR. Although the property is currently owned by the town of Mashpee, it is under the control of the Air Force which obtained a limited easement to this property in 1960 to ensure safe operation at the airfield and to create a clear safety zone for the Otis Air National Guard Base Ammunition Storage Area. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities Following the non-CERCLA removal action, a site investigation was conducted in 1999. The investigation activities included collection and analysis of surface and subsurface soil samples, review of existing groundwater data, collection of two groundwater samples, and a risk evaluation. All sampling results were below action levels. The sampling results and an evaluation of potential risks to human health and environment demonstrated that the site did not pose a threat or require no action. No feasibility study was developed since investigation activities after the removal action did not identify any contamination which could have been caused by the former landfill. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A No Further Action Decision Document was finalized in November 2000. No further risks are present at LF-4 and no institutional controls are present. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In June 1998, the town and the Massachusetts Army National Guard conducted non-CERCLA removal actions under a DEP Administrative Consent Order. Approximately 950 cubic yards of solid waste were removed. No release of any hazardous substances was observed. In the removal, a 55-gallon drum containing five gallons of petroleum product was discovered and removed. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Storm Drain-2/Fuel Spill-6/Fuel Spill-8 (SD-2/FS-6/FS-8) Site Location and History SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 is located on the southern boundary of the MMR, as shown in Figure 5. Its coordinates in Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 865636, 236155; 865932, 236045; 865653, 235179; 865140, 234242; 864849, 233949; 864760, 234141; 864949, 234459; 865265, 235096; and 865636, 236155. The area SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 is a 15.6-acre area consisting of a storm drainage ditch which extends south-southwest from the southern boundary of the MMR towards Ashumet Pond. SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 received storm water discharge from the MMR runway/aircraft maintenance ramp storm sewer system from 1950 through 2001. FS-6 and FS-8 are related to SD-2 because they were two aviation gasoline fuel spills which occurred on the aircraft maintenance ramp and were reportedly washed directly to the storm sewer eventually making its way into the SD-2 ditch. There are reports of other releases into SD-2 of fuel and solvents which were used in the various maintenance shops. In 1968, an oil-water separator was constructed at the storm sewer outfall to intercept fuels from the aircraft maintenance ramp. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities An initial investigation was conducted in 1988 with installation of two monitoring wells and collection of six sediment samples from the storm drainage ditch. In 1989, a remedial investigation expanded the investigation with additional groundwater and sediment samples. In 1993, a supplemental remedial investigation was conducted and included the collection of additional sediment samples. The risk assessment in the remedial investigation identified an ecological risk due to inorganics, specifically chromium, lead, and zinc. A feasibility study was developed and evaluated soil alternatives which were: no action; excavation and asphalt batching; and excavation and off-site treatment and disposal. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A multi-site Record of Decision which included SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 was finalized in September 1998 and selected excavation and asphalt batching as the remedy. Remedial action was required to address ecological risks. An Explanation of Significant Differences was issued in January 2003 and contained adjustments to the cleanup levels and allowed off-site disposal instead of asphalt batching which was deemed too expensive during remedial design and action. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards In 1996, approximately 480 cubic yards of contaminated soil from an adjacent site called the Petroleum Fuel Storage Area and approximately 120 cubic yards of fuel contaminated soil from SD-2 were removed in a non-CERCLA action. In 2002, approximately 350 cubic yards of contaminated soil was removed and transported off-site for disposal implementing the selected remedy in the ROD. The contaminants of concern and their cleanup levels were: chromium—19 mg/kg (ecological risk); lead—99 mg/kg (ecological risk); zinc—68 mg/kg (ecological risk). A remedial action report for SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 was issued in June 2004 and documents the completion of the selected remedy. Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. Storm Drain-3/Fire Training Area-3/Coal Yard-4 (SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4) Site Location and History SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4, is located in the southeastern corner of the MMR, as shown in Figure 5. SD-3 is composed of two parcels with the following Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 867639, 236299; 867578, 236374; 867517, 236575; 867552, 236584; 867608, 236407; 867671, 236361; 867700, 236416; 867685, 236625; 867738, 236636; 867766, 236477; 867732, 236411; 867696, 236258; 867668, 236157; 867628, 236156; and 867639, 236299 for parcel A; and 868617, 236384; 868714, 236345; 868959, 236314; 868916, 236228; 868664, 236279; 868568, 236314; and 868617, 236384 for parcel B. FTA-3 is composed of the following Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27) are: 867475, 235823; 867478, 235658; 867369, 235537; 867188, 235535; 867077, 235645; 867079, 235808; 867184, 235927; 867369, 235930; and 867475, 235823. CY-4 is composed of the following Easting and Northing coordinates (NAD27): 866878, 236000; 867230, 236439; 867144, 236510; 867471, 236945; 867708, 237077; 867754, 236551; 867693, 236192; 867545, 235935; 867611, 235687; 867063, 235857; and 866878, 236000. The area SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4 proposed for partial deletion includes all surface soils within these coordinates. SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4 is a 19-acre area located in a moderately industrialized area on the eastern side of the runways. The SD-3 stormwater drainage ditch receives runoff from several areas which include the eastern edge of the aircraft maintenance ramp, a former Central Heating Plant, and associated stockpiles of coal and surficial coal ash. FTA-3 was used for fire training activities between 1956 and 1958 and then as a disposal area of construction debris and coal ash after construction of the Central Heating Plant. CY-4 is located 400 feet south of the Central Heating Plant and had coal stockpiled directly on the ground from 1955 to 1978. Coal ash was disposed on the ground surface south of the coal pile. Surficial drainage from the stockpile and ash disposal area flowed toward and into SD-3. Investigation and Feasibility Study Activities Initial investigation occurred in 1987 which was followed-up with a remedial investigation that was conducted over three phases from 1989, 1990, and 1993. The remedial investigation identified risk which was due to phenanthrene, chrysene, arsenic, chromium, lead, vanadium, and zinc. An initial investigation was conducted in 1988 with installation of two monitoring wells and collection of six sediment samples from the storm drainage ditch. In 1989, a remedial investigation expanded the investigation with additional groundwater and sediment samples. In 1993, a supplemental remedial investigation was conducted and included the collection of additional sediment samples. The risk assessment in the remedial investigation identified an ecological risk due to inorganics, specifically chromium, lead, and zinc. A feasibility study was developed and evaluated soil alternatives which were: no action; excavation and asphalt batching; and excavation and off-site treatment and disposal. Characterization of Risk and Decision Document Findings A multi-site Record of Decision which included SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4 was finalized in September 1998 and selected excavation and asphalt batching as the remedy. Remedial action was required to address ecological risks. An Explanation of Significant Differences was issued in January 2003 and contained adjustments to the cleanup levels and allowed off-site disposal instead of asphalt batching which was deemed too expensive during remedial design and action. Response Actions and Cleanup Standards From February to April 1994, approximately 42,000 cubic yards of coal, coal ash, and contaminated soil from FTA-3 and CY-4 were excavated and used as subgrade fill for the landfill capping of Landfill No. 1, another site on MMR. In 2001, approximately 1,065 cubic yards of contaminated soil was excavated and transported off-site for disposal implementing the selected remedy in the ROD. A remedial action report for SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4 was finalized in August 2004 and documents the completion of the remedy. The contaminants of concern and their cleanup levels were: chromium—19 mg/kg (ecological risk); lead—99 mg/kg (ecological risk); zinc—68 mg/kg (ecological risk). Operation and Maintenance & Five-Year Review No operation and maintenance or Five-Year Reviews are required for this site. B. Community Involvement Community input has been sought by the Air Force throughout the MMR investigation and cleanup process. Community relations activities that have occurred include: monthly meetings of the Plume Cleanup Team which is a group composed of agency representatives and citizens who live near MMR; 30-day public comment periods for decision documents; public meetings/hearings for the issuance of Proposed Plans, and information meetings for neighborhoods that are affected by off-site plume migration and/or off-site construction; issuance of new releases, fact sheets, and annual reports; and operation and maintenance of a Web site specifically for MMR ( *http://www.mmr.org* ). A copy of the Deletion Docket can be reviewed several ways. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, *e.g.* , CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in *http://www.regulations.gov* or in hard copy at the EPA's New England Region Superfund Records Center, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114 and the Information Repositories at AFCEE/IRP Office at Building 322 on MMR, by appointment only Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.,

(508)968-4670 ext 1, and the Information Repositories in the Towns of Bourne, Falmouth, Sandwich, and Mashpee. The Deletion Docket includes this document, supporting appendices containing tables and figures, No Further Action Decision Documents, Records of Decision, Removal Action Reports, Remedial Action Reports, and correspondence documenting that no further remedial actions are necessary at the sites. Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket on which EPA relied for recommendation of the deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the information repository noted above or online at *http://www.regulations.gov* . Community involvement for the sites that are the subject of this document has occurred by soliciting public comment on various documents depending on the individual site's investigation and cleanup (if needed) process. All No Further Action Decision Documents were issued for 30-day public comment periods. For those sites where Records of Decision were finalized, Proposed Plans were issued for 30-day public comment periods with comments, if any, addressed in the Responsiveness Summary of the Record of Decision. In addition, sites where non-time critical removal actions occurred provided public involvement with the issuance of the engineering evaluation/cost analysis for public comment. Since there are a number of ongoing investigations and cleanup at MMR, community involvement activities such as monthly Plume Cleanup Team meetings will continue to occur. Other activities such as neighborhood meetings, updates to the MMR Web site, and issuance of news releases will occur as needed. C. Current Status One of the three criteria for site deletion specifies that EPA may delete a site (or a portion of a site) from the NPL if “responsible parties or other parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required.” EPA believes that this criterion has been met for this partial deletion. In a letter the Commonwealth of Massachusetts provided their concurrence on the proposed deletion of the sites in this notice. A copy of this letter is available for review in the Information Repository as part of the Deletion Docket. EPA with concurrence from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has determined that all appropriate CERCLA response actions have been completed at the sites in this notice and protection of human health and the environment has been achieved in these sites. Therefore, EPA makes this proposal to delete only the sites in Table 1 of the MMR Superfund Site from the NPL. Based on the successful completion of removal actions and the extensive investigations and risk assessments performed, there are no further response actions planned or scheduled for these sites. Pursuant to the NCP, a five-year review will not need to be performed at all of the sites in this notice. While EPA does not believe that any future response actions at any of the sites in this notice will be needed, if future conditions warrant such action, the proposed deletion sites of the MMR Site remain eligible for future Fund-financed response actions. Furthermore, this partial deletion does not alter the status of all the remaining sites and groundwater plumes of the MMR Site which are not proposed for partial deletion and remain on the NPL. Dated: July 23, 2007. Robert W. Varney, Regional Administrator, EPA New England. Table 1.—List of Proposed Sites for Partial Deletion CS-1* CS-12* FS-17 CS-1 (CG)* CS-14* FS-18* CS-2 CS-15 FS-19 CS-2 (CG)* CS-16/CS-17/DDOU* FS-20* CS-3* CS-22 FS-23 CS-3 (CG)* CY-1* FS-25* CS-4* CY-3 FS-26(CG) CS-4 (CG)/FS-1 (CG)* FS-2 FS-27 CS-5* FS-2

(CG)LF-1

(CG)CS-5 (CG)* FS-3* LF-2

(CG)CS-6*/FS-22 FS-4 LF-3 CS-6 (CG)* FS-7 LF-3

(CG)CS-7* FS-9* LF-4 CS-7 (CG)* FS-13 LF-5 CS-8/FS-21* FS-14 LF-6 CS-8

(CG)FS-15 SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 CS-9 FS-16* SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4 CS-11* Key: CS = Chemical Spill. CY = Coal Yard. DDOU = Drum Disposal Operable Unit. FS = Fuel Spill. FTA = Fire Training Area. LF = Landfill. SD = Storm Drain. CG = U.S. Coast Guard. * Includes structure(s) at site. Table 2.—No Action Sites CS-5 (CG)* FS-2

(CG)LF-2

(CG)CS-7* FS-3* LF-3 CS-7 (CG)* FS-15 LF-3

(CG)CS-12* FS-16* LF-5 CY-1* FS-27 LF-6 CY-3 LF-1

(CG)Key: CS = Chemical Spill. CY = Coal Yard. FS = Fuel Spill. FTA = Fire Training Area. LF = Landfill. SD = Storm Drain. USCG = U.S. Coast Guard. * Includes structure(s) Table 3.—Sites Where Action Occurred CS-1* CS-8 (CG)* CS-1 (CG)* CS-9 FS-14 CS-2 CS-11* FS-17 CS-2 (CG)* CS-14* FS-18* CS-3* CS-15 FS-19 CS-3 (CG)* CS-16/CS-17/DDOU* FS-20* CS-4* CS-22 FS-23 CS-4 (CG)/FS-1 (CG)* FS-2 FS-25* CS-5* FS-4 FS-26

(CG)CS-6*/FS-22 FS-7 LF-4 CS-6 (CG)* FS-9* SD-2/FS-6/FS-8 CS-8/FS-21* FS-13 SD-3/FTA-3/CY-4 Key: CS = Chemical Spill. CY = Coal Yard. DDOU = Drum Disposal Operable Unit. FS = Fuel Spill. FTA = Fire Training Area. LF = Landfill. SD = Storm Drain. USCG = U.S. Coast Guard. * Includes structure(s) [FR Doc. E7-14677 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Part 424 [CMS-6006-P] RIN 0938-AO84 Medicare Program; Surety Bond Requirement for Suppliers of Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Consistent with section 4312(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), this proposed rule implements section 1834(a)(16)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act) by requiring all Medicare suppliers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies (DMEPOS) to furnish CMS with a surety bond. We believe that this requirement would limit the Medicare program risk to fraudulent DME suppliers; enhance the Medicare enrollment process to help ensure that only legitimate DME suppliers are enrolled or are allowed to remain enrolled in the Medicare program; ensure that the Medicare program recoups erroneous payments that result from fraudulent or abusive billing practices by allowing CMS or its designated contractor to seek payments from a Surety up to the penal sum; and help ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive products and services that are considered reasonable and necessary from legitimate DME suppliers. DATES: To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on October 1, 2007. ADDRESSES: In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-6006-P. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile

(FAX)transmission. You may submit comments in one of four ways (no duplicates, please): 1. *Electronically.* You may submit electronic comments on specific issues in this regulation to *http://www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking.* Click on the link “Submit electronic comments on CMS regulations with an open comment period.” (Attachments should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel; however, we prefer Microsoft Word.) 2. *By regular mail.* You may mail written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-6006-P, P.O. Box 8017, Baltimore, MD 21244-8017. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period. 3. *By express or overnight mail.* You may send written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-6006-P, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. 4. *By hand or courier.* If you prefer, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments (one original and two copies) before the close of the comment period to one of the following addresses. If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, please call telephone number

(410)786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members. Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20201; or 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850. (Because access to the interior of the HHH Building is not readily available to persons without Federal Government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.) Comments mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period. *Submission of comments on paperwork requirements.* You may submit comments on this document's paperwork requirements by mailing your comments to the addresses provided at the end of the “Collection of Information Requirements” section in this document. For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Whelan,

(410)786-1302. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Submitting Comments:* We welcome comments from the public on all issues set forth in this rule to assist us in fully considering issues and developing policies. You can assist us by referencing the file code CMS-6006-P and the specific “issue identifier” that precedes the section on which you choose to comment. *Inspection of Public Comments:* All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: *http://www.cms.hhs.gov/eRulemaking.* Click on the link “Electronic Comments on CMS Regulations” on that Web site to view public comments. Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background A. General and Legislative History Medicare services are furnished by two types of entities—providers and suppliers. At § 400.202, “provider” is defined as a hospital, a critical access hospital (CAH), a skilled nursing facility, a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility, a home health agency (HHA), or a hospice that has in effect an agreement to participate in Medicare, or a clinic, a rehabilitation agency, or a public health agency that has in effect a similar agreement but only to furnish outpatient physical therapy or speech pathology services, or a community mental health center that has in effect a similar agreement but only to furnish partial hospitalization services. The term “provider” is also defined in sections 1861(u) and 1866(e) of the Social Security Act (the Act). A supplier that furnishes durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and suppliers (DMEPOS) is one category of supplier. Other supplier categories may include, for example, physicians, nurse practitioners, and physical therapists. The term “DMEPOS” encompasses the types of items included in the definition of medical equipment and supplies found at section 1834(j)(5) of the Act. For purposes of the DMEPOS supplier standards, the term “supplier” is defined in § 424.57(a) as an entity or individual, including a physician or Part A provider, that sells or rents Part B covered DMEPOS items to Medicare beneficiaries and that meets the DMEPOS supplier standards. This proposed rule would apply to all DMEPOS suppliers. Those individuals or entities that do not furnish DMEPOS items but furnish other types of health care services only (for example, physician services or nurse practitioner services) would not be subject to this requirement. B. Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) 1. Durable Medical Equipment The term DME is defined at section 1861(n) of the Act. This definition, in part, excludes from coverage as DME items furnished in skilled nursing facilities and hospitals (equipment furnished in those facilities is paid for as part of their routine or ancillary costs). Also, the term DME is included in the definition of “medical and other health services” found at section 1861(s)(6) of the Act. Furthermore, the term is defined in § 414.202 as equipment furnished by a supplier or a HHA that—

(1)Can withstand repeated use;

(2)Is primarily and customarily used to serve a medical purpose;

(3)Generally is not useful to an individual in the absence of an illness or injury; and

(4)Is appropriate for use in the home. Examples of DMEPOS supplies include items such as blood glucose monitors, hospital beds, nebulizers, oxygen delivery systems, and wheelchairs. 2. Prosthetic Devices Prosthetic devices are included in the definition of “medical and other health services” under section 1861(s)

(8)of the Act. Prosthetic devices are defined in this section of the Act as “devices (other than dental) which replace all or part of an internal body organ (including colostomy bags and supplies directly related to colostomy care), including replacement of such devices, and including one pair of conventional eyeglasses or contact lenses furnished subsequent to each cataract surgery with insertion of an intraocular lens.” Other examples of prosthetic devices include cardiac pacemakers, cochlear implants, electrical continence aids, electrical nerve stimulators, and tracheostomy speaking valves. Under section 1834(h)(4)(B), prosthetic devices do not include parenteral and enteral nutrition nutrients and implantable items payable under section 1833(t) of the Act. 3. Orthotics and Prosthetics Section 1861(s)(9) of the Act provides for the coverage of “leg, arm, back, and neck braces, and artificial legs, arms, and eyes including replacement of required because of a change in patient's physical condition.” As indicated by section 1834(h)(4)(C) of the Act, these items are often referred to as “orthotics and prosthetics.” 4. Supplies Section 1861(s)(5) of the Act includes “surgical dressings, splints, casts, and other devices used for reduction of fractures and dislocation” as one of the “medical and other health services” that is covered by Medicare. Other items that may be furnished by suppliers would include (among others): • Prescription drugs used in immunosuppressive therapy furnished to an individual who receives an organ transplant for which payment is made under this title, and that are furnished within a certain time period after the date of the transplant procedure as noted at section 1861(s)(2)(j) of the Act. • Extra-depth shoes with inserts or custom molded shoes with inserts for an individual with diabetes as listed at section 1861(s)(12) of the Act. • Home dialysis supplies and equipment, self-care home dialysis support services, and institutional dialysis services and supplies included at section 1861(s)(2)(F) of the Act. • Oral drugs prescribed for use as an anticancer therapeutic agent as specified in section 1861(s)(2)(Q) of the Act. • Self-administered erythropoietin as described in section 1861(s)(2)(O) of the Act. II. General Overview of the Proposed Rule In the January 20, 1998 **Federal Register** (63 FR 2926), we published a proposed rule to reflect the changes made to section 1834 of the Act by section 4312(a) of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997

(BBA)(Pub. L. 105-33). Section 4312(a) of the BBA amended section 1834(a) of the Act by adding paragraph (a)(16)(B) which requires a DMEPOS supplier to provide us, on a continuing basis, with a surety bond of at least $65,000, as a condition of the issuance or renewal of a provider number. Section 1834(a)(16), as amended by section 4312(c) of the BBA, further provides that we may also require a surety bond from some or all providers or suppliers who furnish items or services under Medicare Part A or Part B. However, since section 902 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-173)

(MMA)prohibits the Secretary from finalizing a proposed rule related to Title 18 that was published more than 3 years earlier except under exceptional circumstances, this rule was never finalized. As a result, we are proposing this rule at this time to implement the statutory surety bond requirement set forth in section 1834(a)(16)(B) of the Act. However, given the lapse in time between the statutory effective date and date of this proposed rule, we believe that it appropriate to adjust the amount of the surety bond from $50,000 in 1997 by the Consumer Price Index

(CPI)and calculate a higher surety bond amount. In doing so, we have adjusted the initial surety bond amount of $50,000 by the CPI and have calculated that a $50,000 surety bond in 1997 would equate to a surety bond value of $64,907.17 in 2007. Further, we have rounded the calculated value of $64,907.17 to the nearest thousand to derive a surety bond amount of $65,000. We believe that establishing a $65,000 surety bond for DMEPOS suppliers would:

(1)Limit the Medicare program risk to fraudulent DME suppliers;

(2)enhance the Medicare enrollment process to help ensure that only legitimate DME suppliers are enrolled or are allowed to remain enrolled in the Medicare program;

(3)ensure that the Medicare program recoups erroneous payments that result from fraudulent or abusive billing practices by allowing CMS or its designated contractor to seek payments from a Surety up to the penal sum; and

(4)help ensure that Medicare beneficiaries receive products and services that are considered reasonable and necessary from legitimate DME suppliers. III. Provisions of the Proposed Rule [If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “PROVISIONS” at the beginning of your comments.] A. Special Payment Rules for Items Furnished by DMEPOS Suppliers and Issuance of DMEPOS Supplier Billing Numbers (§ 424.57) In § 424.57, we are proposing to define the following terms as they are used throughout this regulation in the context of the surety bond requirements: • Assessment. • Authorized Surety. • Civil money penalty. • Government-Operated Suppliers. • National Supplier Clearinghouse (NSC). • Penal Sum. • Rider. • Sufficient evidence. • Surety bond. • Unauthorized Surety. • Unpaid claim. Although we are proposing to define “unauthorized surety”, we clarify that we do not envision that we would need to declare a surety to be unauthorized except on rare occasions. We anticipate that virtually every surety would provide us, upon written request, information needed to verify the identity of a bondholder, the effective date of the bond, and proof that the surety issued the bond as represented by the supplier. However, if a surety fails to comply with our request for this information, we would consider that surety as unauthorized to provide bonds to DMEPOS suppliers seeking enrollment in the Medicare program. We believe that without this provision, some sureties may not be inclined to provide information we need on a timely basis. Furthermore, a surety is unauthorized if it had previously failed to comply with a reasonable request from us for payment against a bond. An example of a reasonable request would be a request in writing, signed by an official of CMS or its representatives, or documentation about the amount payable by the supplier. This provision would allow us to take action to prevent a surety from issuing a bond to a Medicare DMEPOS supplier in cases where we have determined that the surety failed to meet its obligations to the Medicare program. In § 424.57, we propose to add new (c)(26). Specifically, we propose that— • § 424.57(c)(26) would specify the requirements for a DMEPOS supplier seeking to become a Medicare-enrolled DMEPOS supplier. • § 424.57(c)(26)(i) would clarify the minimum requirements for a DMEPOS supplier. We specify that each Medicare-enrolled DMEPOS supplier must obtain a surety bond for each National Provider Identifier

(NPI)from an authorized surety. The surety bond or government security must be in the amount of $65,000 and in the form specified by the Secretary. While we are proposing to adjust the amount of the surety bond from $50,000 in 1997 by the CPI and calculate a higher surety bond amount of $65,000 in 2007, we are not proposing to adjust the base surety bond amount by the CPI annually thereafter. However, we will consider whether any additional adjustments (increase or decrease) in the base surety amount are necessary in through a future rulemaking effort. • § 424.57(c)(26)(i)(A) would specify that a DMEPOS supplier must submit a surety bond with its initial paper or electronic Medicare enrollment application (CMS-855S, OMB Number 0938-0685) or with its paper or electronic revalidation or reenrollment application. • § 424.57(c)(26)(i)(B) specifies how a change of ownership interest affects the DMEPOS supplier. • § 424.57(c)(26)(i)(C) specifies that a DMEPOS supplier seeking to enroll a new location must obtain a new surety bond for this new location since this new location is also required to be enumerated with a unique NPI. • § 457.57(c)(26)(ii) would establish an exception to the bond requirement for a DMEPOS supplier operated by a Federal, State, local, or tribal government agency if the DME supplier has provided CMS with a comparable surety bond required under State law and if the supplier does not have any unpaid claims, Civil Money Penalties (CMPs), or assessments. However, a government-operated supplier that does not qualify for an exception must submit a surety bond. We have determined that an exception of the surety bond requirement for government-operated suppliers extends only to those suppliers that have a good history of paying their Medicare debts. The basis for this exception is principally that government-operated suppliers have the power to tax; therefore, it is unlikely the DMEPOS suppliers will be unable to pay their Medicare debts. Thus, government-operated DMEPOS suppliers, by their public nature, furnish a comparable or greater guarantee of payment than would be afforded us by a surety bond issued by a private surety. Nevertheless, government-operated DMEPOS suppliers with a poor history of paying their Medicare debts are subject to the surety bond requirement. While the Medicare contractors collect overpayments in full or as part of a predetermined payment schedule, such as an extended repayment schedule, some DMEPOS suppliers default on their scheduled repayment plan. When this occurs and the repayment schedule cannot be extended, we will place the DMEPOS supplier on 100 percent payment withholding. In the event that a government-operated DMEPOS supplier is placed on 100 percent payment withholding due to non-payment of an overpayment, the DMEPOS supplier will also be required to obtain a surety bond. A supplier operating under a contract with a government agency but not owned and staffed by the government would not qualify for this exception. Our anecdotal experience with previously published rules suggests that a government-operated entity would timely pay their Medicare debts (see the HHA surety bond final rule published in the **Federal Register** on January 5, 1998 (63 FR 315); amended by a final rule published in the **Federal Register** on March 4, 1998 (63 FR 10731); a final rule published in the **Federal Register** on June 1, 1998 (63 FR 29656); and a final rule published in the **Federal Register** on July 21, 1998 (63 FR 41171)). • We are soliciting comments on whether we should consider establishing an exception to the surety bond requirement for certain physicians and non-physician practitioners, such as those that occasionally furnish DMEPOS items for the convenience of their patients. While we are seeking comments about establishing an exception for physicians and non-physician practitioners, we are not certain about the scope of the exception that should be established for physicians and non-physician practitioners. As such, we are soliciting comments on how to identify whether a physician or non-physician practitioner should be given an exception to the surety bond requirement. We also are soliciting comments on any other appropriate criteria that we should use when considering the establishment of an exception to this requirement for certain physicians and non-physician practitioners. • We are soliciting comments on whether we should establish an exception to the surety bond requirement for licensed pharmacists who furnish DMEPOS items for the convenience of their patients. We also are soliciting comments on any other appropriate criteria that we should consider in establishing an exception to this requirement for licensed pharmacists. • We are also soliciting comments on any other appropriate criteria that we should consider in establishing an exception to this requirement as to these types of suppliers. • We are also soliciting comment on whether we should establish an exception to the surety bond requirement for large, publicly traded chain suppliers of DMEPOS. We are soliciting comments on any appropriate criteria that we should consider in waiving this requirement as to these types of suppliers. • We are also soliciting comments on the appropriate criteria that we may use for establishing exceptions for other types of DMEPOS suppliers from the requirement to purchase a surety bond. • § 424.57(c)(26)(iii) would specify the terms of a bond submitted by a DMEPOS supplier. • § 424.57(c)(26)(iv) would specify additional DMEPOS supplier bond requirements and would specify the surety's liability under the bond for unpaid claims, CMPs, or assessments that the surety is liable to us, up to a total of the full penal amount of the bond. Thus, since we are proposing that surety bonds be issued in an amount equal to $65,000, the surety is liable to us for up to $65,000. • § 424.57(c)(26)(v) would specify the requirements to cancel a surety bond. Specifically, this section would allow a DMEPOS supplier to terminate or cancel a bond upon proper notice to the NSC. If another bond is submitted and there is a lapse in bond coverage, Medicare would not pay for items or services furnished during the gap in coverage, and the DMEPOS supplier would be held liable for the items or services (that is, the DMEPOS supplier would not be permitted to charge the beneficiary for the items or services). Failure by the DMEPOS supplier to submit another bond would result in revocation of the DMEPOS supplier's Medicare billing privileges. The supplier would be required to refund the beneficiary any amounts collected for services or supplies furnished during the gap in the surety bond coverage. Also, a supplier or surety may not place any limitations on the surety bond except as specifically provided for in this section. Any attempt to do so may result in revocation of the DMEPOS supplier's billing privileges and a determination that the surety is an unauthorized surety. • § 424.57(c)(26)(vi) would specify that the bond must provide that actions under the surety bond may be brought by our contractors or us. • § 424.57(c)(26)(vii) would specify that the surety must provide information regarding their physical location including their name, street address, city, state, and zip code and, if different, their mailing address, including name, post office box, city, state, and zip code. • § 424.57(c)(26)(viii) would specify the submission date and the term of the DMEPOS supplier bond. • § 424.57(c)(26)(viii)(A) would specify that each enrolled DMEPOS supplier that does not meet the criteria for exception must submit to the NSC an initial surety bond before (60 days following the publication date of the final rule). • § 424.57(c)(26)(viii)(B) would specify the type of bond required to be submitted by a DMEPOS supplier under this subpart must be either a continuous bond or an annual bond, with the exception of the initial bond which may differ as specified in this section. • § 424.57(c)(26)(ix) would specify the loss of a DMEPOS supplier exception. A DMEPOS supplier that no longer qualifies for a exception as a government-operated DMEPOS supplier must submit a surety bond to the NSC within 60 days after it receives notice that it no longer meets the criteria for and exception. • § 424.57(c)(26)(x) would specify the conditions under which a DMEPOS supplier changes a surety. • § 424.57(c)(26)(xi) would specify who the parties are to the bond. • § 424.57(c)(26)(xii) would specify the effect of a DMEPOS supplier's failure to obtain, maintain, and timely file a surety bond. • § 424.57(c)(26)(xii)(A) would specify that we may revoke the DMEPOS supplier's billing privileges if an enrolled supplier fails to obtain, file timely, and maintain a surety bond as specified in this subpart and as instructed by us. The revocation is effective with the date the bond lapsed and any payments for items or services furnished on or after that date must be repaid to us by the DMEPOS supplier. • § 424.57(c)(26)(xii)(B) would specify that we refuse to issue billing privileges to the DMEPOS supplier if a DMEPOS supplier seeking to become an enrolled DMEPOS supplier fails to obtain and file timely a surety bond as specified in this subpart and our instructions. • § 424.57(c)(26)(xiii) would specify the documentation that a DMEPOS supplier must have to be in compliance with these requirements and that we may require a supplier to produce documentation that it has a bond and that it meets the requirements of this section. • § 424.57(c)(26)(xiv) would specify the effect of subsequent DMEPOS supplier payments paid to us. If a surety has paid an amount to us on the basis of liability incurred under a bond and we subsequently collect from the DMEPOS supplier, in whole or in part, on the unpaid claims, CMPs, or assessments that were the basis for the surety's liability, we would reimburse the surety the amount that it collected from the DMEPOS supplier, up to the amount paid by the Surety to us, provided the surety has no other liability to us under the bond. • § 424.57(c)(26)(xv) would specify the effect of a review reversing an appealed determination. We would refund to the DMEPOS supplier the amount that the DMEPOS supplier paid us, to the extent that the amount relates to the matter that was successfully appealed, provided all review, including judicial review, has been completed on the matter. In addition, DMEPOS suppliers have the right to appeal any adverse decisions with respect to unpaid claims, CMPs or assessments. DMEPOS suppliers must use the following applicable appeals provisions specified in 42 CFR associated with each adverse determination: Part 405, subpart I (claims appeals); Part 1003 (civil money penalties); and Part 498 (Medicare participation and enrollment). We believe that the appeals processes as they apply to DMEPOS suppliers and sureties should be addressed through a private contract between the parties. Specifically, we believe that sureties should consider requiring DMEPOS suppliers to agree to repay the surety any payments made by a Medicare contractor resulting from a DMEPOS supplier's appeal of any adverse decisions with respect to unpaid claims, CMPs or assessments. Any such contract must be consistent with the applicable appeals processes referenced above. In determining whether a private contract is necessary, we suggest that the sureties and DMEPOS suppliers consider the following types provisions: appointment of representative, repayment of any bonding amounts paid to the DMEPOS supplier that were already paid by the surety and the potential cost of pursuing administrative appeals. Furthermore, we are soliciting comments on requiring DMEPOS suppliers to obtain a surety bond of more than $65,000 if the DMEPOS supplier poses a significantly higher than average risk to the Medicare Trust Funds. Specifically, we are soliciting comments on how to establish elevated amounts of surety bonds for higher risk DMEPOS suppliers. We are considering the option of establishing elevated amounts of the surety bond at a rate of $65,000 per high risk factor. Also, we are soliciting comments on determining the high risk factors that should be used. We suggest several potential high risk factors below, but would consider any comments on these factors, as well as suggestions for additional factors. We are considering a $65,000 increase in the surety amount for each occurrence when a DMEPOS supplier has a final adverse action as specified in section 221(g)(1)(A) of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-191) (HIPAA). Examples of final adverse actions include, but are not limited to, Federal and State criminal convictions related to the delivery of health care item or service, formal or official actions, such as revocation or suspension of a license, and exclusion from participation in Federal or State health care programs. The following is an example of how high-risk criteria would be used to increase the bond amount by $65,000 per occurrence. • For example, a DMEPOS supplier would be required to obtain a surety bond in the amount of $130,000, an increase of $65,000 from the base surety bond amount of $65,000, if the DMEPOS supplier or any of its owners, authorized officials, or delegated officials had their billing privileges revoked within the last 10 years. If the DMEPOS supplier or any of its owners, authorized officials, or delegated officials had more than one revocation in the last 10 years, then the amount of the surety bond the DMEPOS supplier would be required to obtain would increase $65,000 per occurrence. For example, a DMEPOS supplier with three different revocations during the proceeding 10 years would be required to obtain a surety bond in the amount of $260,000; $65,000 for the base surety amount and $195,000 (3 x $65,000) for the multiple revocations. In addition to the elevated risk-based model described above, we are soliciting comments regarding the establishment of elevated bond amounts by classifying DMEPOS suppliers into two or three general categories such as— • New DMEPOS supplier applicants that have no prior billing history with the Medicare program that also would be required to secure a surety bond; • Current Medicare enrolled DMEPOS suppliers that do not have any prior history of criminal, civil or administrative sanctions for billing-related problems; and, • Current Medicare enrolled DMEPOS supplier with a prior “adverse history” of criminal, civil or administrative sanctions for billing-related problems for which the regulation would elevate the amount of the required surety by an appropriate amount per prior sanction. We are soliciting comments regarding the appropriate elevated amounts of the surety bond using this categorical approach. We are also soliciting comments on whether we should establish an exception for rural DMEPOS suppliers and the appropriate criteria that we should consider in establishing an exception for rural DMEPOS suppliers. Finally, we are soliciting comments on the appropriate period of time that a DMEPOS supplier should be required to maintain a higher surety bond amount. Given the higher level of risk associated with DMEPOS suppliers that have one or more risk factors, we are proposing to establish a timeframe of 5 years. IV. Collection of Information Requirements Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), we are required to provide a 60-day notice in the **Federal Register** and solicit public comment before a collection of information requirement is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval. In order to fairly evaluate whether an information collection should be approved by OMB, section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires that we solicit comment on the following issues: • The need for the information collection and its usefulness in carrying out the proper functions of our agency. • The accuracy of our estimate of the information collection burden. • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected. • Recommendations to minimize the information collection burden on the affected public, including automated collection techniques. We are soliciting public comment on each of the following issues pertaining to the information collection requirements discussed in this proposed rule. Special Payment Rules for Items Furnished by DMEPOS Suppliers and Issuance of DMEPOS Supplier Billing Numbers (§ 424.57) Section 424.57(c)(26) outlines the surety bond requirements for DMEPOS suppliers. Specifically, § 424.57(c)(26) states that each Medicare-enrolled DMEPOS supplier must obtain and furnish to the National Supplier Clearinghouse

(NSC)a surety bond in the amount of $65,000. The bond must be obtained from an authorized surety, and must be submitted for each NPI obtained by a Medicare enrolled DMEPOS supplier. Section 424.57(c)(26)(i) outlines the minimum requirements for a DMEPOS supplier seeking to become a Medicare-enrolled DMEPOS supplier. Section 424.57(c)(26)(i)(A) requires a DMEPOS supplier seeking to become a Medicare-enrolled supplier to submit documentation verifying possession of a surety bond with its Medicare enrollment application. Section 424.57(c)(26)(i)(B) states that a DMEPOS supplier seeking to become an enrolled supplier through the purchase or transfer of assets or ownership interest of an enrolled or formerly enrolled DMEPOS supplier must provide a surety bond that is effective from the date of the purchase or transfer in order to exercise billing privileges as of that date. If the bond is effective at a later date, the effective date of the new DMEPOS supplier number will be the effective date of the surety bond as validated by the NSC rather than the date of the change of ownership. Section 424.57(c)(26)(i)(C) requires a DMEPOS supplier that is seeking to enroll a new location to obtain a new surety bond for that new location since that new location will also require a unique NPI. Section 424.57(c)(26)(v) discusses the change of ownership process. DMEPOS suppliers are required to submit an updated enrollment application if they have undergone a change in ownership. As part of the updated application, the new owners are required to obtain and submit a surety bond to the NSC that is effective with the date of the change of ownership in order to obtain or retain billing privileges. If the bond is effective at a later date, the effective date of the change of ownership by the new DMEPOS supplier number is the date of the surety bond as validated by the NSC rather than the date of the transfer of ownership. The burden associated with all of the requirements in § 424.57(c)(26)(i) through

(iv)is the time and effort required for a DMEPOS supplier to obtain a surety bond and to submit the bond as part of its Medicare Enrollment Application. A DMEPOS supplier is required to submit a Medicare enrollment application if it is: • Enrolling in Medicare for the first time as a DMEPOS supplier. • Currently enrolled in Medicare as a DMEPOS supplier and needs to report changes to its business, other than enrolling a new business location. Changes must be reported within 30 days of the effective date of the change. • Currently enrolled in Medicare as a DMEPOS supplier but need to enroll a new business location. This is to add a new location to an organization with a TIN already listed with the NSC. (This differs from changing information on an already existing location.) • Currently enrolled in Medicare as a DMEPOS supplier and has been asked to verify or update its information. This includes situations where it has been asked to attest that its organization is still eligible to receive Medicare payments. • Reactivating its Medicare DMEPOS supplier billing number (for example, its Medicare supplier billing number was deactivated because of non-billing, and they wish to receive payment from Medicare for future claims). • Voluntarily terminating its Medicare DMEPOS supplier billing number. The burden associated with submitting an updated enrollment application is approved under OMB control number 0938-0685 with an expiration date of April 30, 2009. We believe the requirements in § 424.57(c)(26) impose a marginal increase in burden as DMEPOS suppliers are already required to submit the Medicare Enrollment Application. We estimate the burden associated with the requirements in § 424.57(c)(26)(i) through

(v)to be 60 minutes per DMEPOS supplier. In addition, we estimate that approximately 116,500 DMEPOS suppliers will comply with these requirements. Therefore, the estimated total annual burden is 116,500 hours. Section 424.57(c)(26)(v) states that a surety bond may be cancelled with written notice from the DMEPOS supplier to the NSC. The burden associated with this requirement is the time and effort necessary for either DMEPOS supplier to draft and submit the notice of cancellation to the NSC. We estimate the burden associated with this requirement to be 30 minutes. In addition, we anticipate that 1,000 suppliers will draft and submit the necessary documentation. We estimate the total annual burden to be 500 hours. Section 424.57(c)(26)(ix) requires a DMEPOS supplier that no longer qualifies as a government-operated DMEPOS supplier to submit a surety bond to the NSC within 60 days of receiving notice that it no longer qualifies for a exception. The burden associated with this requirement is the time and effort necessary for the DMEPOS supplier to obtain and submit a surety bond to the NSC within 60 days of receiving notice that it no longer qualifies for a exception. We estimate the burden associated with this requirement to be 30 minutes. In addition, we anticipate that 10 suppliers will draft and submit the necessary documentation. We estimate the total annual burden to be 5 hours. Section 424.57(c)(26)(x) requires a DMEPOS supplier that obtains a replacement surety bond from a different surety to cover the remaining term of a previously obtained bond to submit the new surety bond to the NSC within 30 days of expiration of the previous bond. The burden associated with this requirement is the time and effort necessary to obtain and submit the new surety bond to the NSC. We estimate the burden associated with this requirement to be 30 minutes. In addition, we anticipate that 1,000 suppliers will comply with this requirement. We estimate the total annual burden to be 500 hours. Section 424.57(c)(26)(xiii) imposes recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Section 424.57(c)(26)(xvi)(A) states that CMS may at any time require a DMEPOS supplier to show compliance with the requirements associated with 42 CFR part 424. The burden for this requirement is the time and effort associated with maintaining the necessary documentation on file. While this requirement is subject to the PRA, we believe the burden is exempt as stated in 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2) because the time, effort, and financial resources necessary to comply with the requirement would be incurred by persons in the normal course of their activities. The burden associated with producing the documents upon request from CMS is estimated to be 30 minutes per DMEPOS supplier. We estimate that 1,000 DMEPOS suppliers will be asked to submit the requested documentation. The total annual burden associated with this requirement is estimated to be 500 hours. Table 1.—Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Regulation section OMB control number Number of respondents Number of responses Total annual burden hours 424.57(c)(26)(i through iv) 0938-New 116,500 116,500 116,500 0938-0685 400,000 400,000 1,000,000 § 424.57(c)(26)(v) 0938-New 1,000 1,000 500 § 424.57(c)(26)(ix) 0938-New 10 10 5 § 424.57(c)(26)(xi) 0938-New 1,000 1,000 500 § 424.57(c)(26)(xii) 0938-New 1,000 1,000 500 Total 1,118,005 We submitted a copy of this proposed rule with comment to the OMB for its review of the information collection requirements. These requirements are not effective until approved by OMB. If you comment on any of these information collection and recordkeeping requirements, please mail copies directly to the following: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Regulations Development Group Attn.: William N. Parham, III, CMS-6006-P Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850; and Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Attn.: Carolyn Lovett, CMS Desk Officer, CMS-6006-P, *carolyn_lovett@omb.eop.gov* . Fax

(202)395-6974. V. Response to Comments Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on **Federal Register** documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the DATES section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document. VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis [If you choose to comment on issues in this section, please include the caption “IMPACT” at the beginning of your comments.] A. Introduction We have examined the impact of this rule as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA)(September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 12866 (as amended by Executive Order 13258, which merely reassigns responsibility of duties) directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis

(RIA)must be prepared for major rules with economically significant effects ($100 million or more in any 1 year). We estimate that the surety bond requirement as specified in § 424.57(c)(26)(i) would cost approximately $198 million annually. This cost is based on the number of suppliers furnishing DMEPOS (approximately 99,000) multiplied by the average annual cost of a bond ($2,000). Based on information received from the industry, we estimated that the average bond cost is approximately $2,000 or 3 percent of the bond's value. We are seeking comments on the accuracy of this estimate. A surety charges its underwriting fee based on the penal sum of the bond. We have determined that for this type of surety bond the industry usually has an underwriting charge of 2 to 3 percent. We believe that there is little variation of the charge based on geographical location or type of DMEPOS supplier although the DMEPOS supplier's financial soundness probably would be a factor in the rate charged by the surety for the bond. We are unable to make an estimate of the range of financial soundness of DMEPOS suppliers, or its impact on the cost of surety bonds for Medicare. While it is not possible to estimate with accuracy the savings that would result from the implementation of this proposed rule, we believe that surety bonds combined with other program integrity efforts should reduce the number of DMEPOS suppliers that currently bill Medicare fraudulently because DMEPOS suppliers would be subject to the scrutiny of surety companies. In addition, surety bonds would serve as a deterrent to others tempted to engage in fraudulent behavior because of the cost of the bond and the possibility of the need to post collateral. The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of $6.5 million to $31.5 million in any 1 year. In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 603 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds. We are not preparing a rural impact statement since we have determined, and certify, that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. Table 2 examines the allowed charges to the unique billing numbers (a DMEPOS supplier may have multiple locations, for example, a chain organization, but use only one unique billing number), the vast majority of DMEPOS suppliers are small entities (based on Medicare reimbursement alone). Table 2.—Total Number of Suppliers Arranged by Allowed Charges for Dates of Service (January Through December 2005 Based on Unique Billing Numbers) Allowed charge Number of suppliers reimbursed for DME Number of DMEPOS suppliers reimbursed for non-DME only $0 2,016 4,655 $0.01-$999 2,544 6,624 $1,000-$2,499 2,099 4,993 $2,500-$4,999 2,285 4,459 $5,000-$9,999 2,964 4,153 $10,000-$24,999 4,568 4,328 $25,000-$49,999 3,378 2,100 $50,000-$99,999 2,780 1,245 $100,000-$499,999 5,955 1,191 $500,000-$999,999 1,762 220 $1,000,000-4,999,999 1,345 105 $5,000,000 or more 208 7 Total 31,904 34,080 In reviewing Table 2, the term, durable medical equipment

(DME)is defined at section 1861(n) of the Act. This definition, in part, excludes from coverage as DME, items furnished in skilled nursing facilities and hospitals (equipment furnished in those facilities is paid for as part of their routine or ancillary costs). Also, the term DME is included in the definition of “medical and other health services” found at section 1861(s)(6) of the Act. Furthermore, the term is defined in § 414.202 as equipment furnished by a supplier or a HHA that— • Can withstand repeated use; • Is primarily and customarily used to serve a medical purpose; • Generally is not useful to an individual in the absence of an illness or injury; and • Is appropriate for use in the home. Examples of DMEPOS supplies include items such as blood glucose monitors, hospital beds, nebulizers, oxygen delivery systems, and wheelchairs. Conversely, suppliers of non-DME only refers to items or services furnished by prosthetics, orthotist, and supplies found in section 1861(s)(5) of the Act. As of April 2007, there were 116,471 individual DMEPOS suppliers. However, due to the affiliation of some DMEPOS suppliers with chains, there were only approximately 65,984 unique billing numbers (31,904 + 34,080). According to Table 2, for fiscal year 2005, approximately 15,800 billing suppliers with allowed charges of less than $1,000 (2,016 + 4,655 + 2,544 + 6,624) would have been required to submit a surety bond if this proposed rule is implemented. Based on our analysis, we anticipate that almost all of these DMEPOS suppliers, excluding physician and other practitioners as defined in section 1842(b)(18)(C) of the Act, would elect to cease their enrollment in Medicare because their bond cost would exceed their profit from dealing in Medicare-covered items. Furthermore, the majority of the 13,836 DMEPOS suppliers with allowed charges $1,000 to $4,999 (2,099 + 4,993 + 2,285 + 4,459) would not recoup their bond costs from Medicare business. Also, a portion of DMEPOS suppliers in higher charge categories may decide to forego their Medicare enrollment as a DMEPOS supplier because of the added cost of the bond. We estimate that as many as 15,000 DMEPOS suppliers, or 23 percent of the 65,984 entities, and 15 percent (or 17,471) of the 116,471 individual suppliers currently enrolled in Medicare could decide to cease providing items to Medicare beneficiaries if this proposed rule is implemented. We believe that approximately 22 percent of the 15,000 DMEPOS suppliers are located in rural areas. We further believe that most, if not all, of the Medicare business conducted by these DMEPOS suppliers would be assumed by other DMEPOS suppliers remaining in the program (for example, by mail order or via the World Wide Web). To assist Medicare beneficiaries locate a replacement DMEPOS supplier who qualifies to continue to participate in the Medicare program, we would conduct education and outreach efforts to ease the transition from a departing DMEPOS supplier to a DMEPOS supplier that will remain in the program. Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. That threshold is currently approximately $120 million. This proposed rule would have no consequential effect on State, local, or tribal governments. We believe that the private sector costs of this rule are greater than these thresholds. Executive Order 13132 established certain requirements that an agency must meet when it issues a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments, preempts State law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. We have reviewed this rule under the threshold criteria of Executive Order 13132 and have determined that it does not significantly affect the rights, roles, and responsibilities of States. B. Alternatives Considered As specified in section 4312(a) of the BBA, a surety bond is required as long as an entity remains a DMEPOS supplier. In the proposed rule published in the January 20, 1998 **Federal Register** (63 FR 2926), we proposed that a DMEPOS supplier would be required to obtain a surety bond equal to $65,000 per TIN, the basic identification element for a DMEPOS supplier. However, with the more recent assignment of the National Provider Identifier (NPI), the TIN is no longer the basic identification element for a DMEPOS supplier. Accordingly, requiring a surety bond for each TIN is not consistent with the Agency's NPI implementation or with current Medicare regulations. In the Agency's Medicare Subpart Expectation Paper, the Agency states that each enrolled supplier of DMEPOS that is a covered entity under HIPAA must designate each practice location (if it has more than one) as a subpart and ensure that each subpart obtains its own unique NPI. Further, § 424.57(b)(1) requires that each practice location of a supplier of DMEPOS (if it has more than one) must, by law, be separately enrolled in Medicare and have its own unique Medicare billing number or NPI. Accordingly, we are proposing a $65,000 bond per DMEPOS supplier NPI; the basic identification element for a DMEPOS supplier. C. Conclusion Any burden imposed by this proposed rule is legislatively mandated, and we have taken steps to ensure that the burden on DMEPOS suppliers is minimal. Surety bonds use a private sector mechanism to screen DMEPOS suppliers that provide items and services to Medicare's beneficiaries and help ensure that they are financially responsible. Also, surety bonds help to ensure that the government can recoup taxpayer money from DME suppliers who default on their obligations to the Medicare program. We use a financial guarantee bond for the return of overpayments regardless of their source. A guarantee bond would ensure more scrutiny and benefits to Medicare. In underwriting this type of bond, a surety would pay particular attention to financial statements, business practices, and overpayment history. This scrutiny would provide the Medicare program with some of the following benefits:

(1)Proprietors who do not have relevant program experience would be deterred from entering the program;

(2)existing Medicare DMEPOS suppliers would be examined as to their business soundness; and

(3)DMEPOS suppliers with overpayments that do not repay their overpayments would be unlikely to obtain a subsequent surety bond and would be removed from the Medicare business. Generally, all DMEPOS suppliers would be deterred from incurring overpayments and would have an incentive to repay any overpayments that are discovered. Screening by a surety appears to be most useful for new DMEPOS suppliers. The large number of DMEPOS suppliers entering the Medicare program with little scrutiny makes requiring surety bonds a useful mechanism for screening DMEPOS suppliers already in the program. However, the value of this scrutiny would probably diminish with a DMEPOS supplier's continued participation in Medicare. We believe that the impact on benefit payments is indeterminable. In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 424 Emergency medical services, Health facilities, Health professions, Medicare. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposes to amend 42 CFR chapter IV, as set forth below: PART 424—CONDITIONS FOR MEDICARE PAYMENT 1. The authority citation for part 424 is revised to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh). Subpart D—To Whom Payment Is Ordinarily Made 2. Section 424.57 is amended by— A. Amending paragraph

(a)to add the following definitions in alphabetical order: “Assessment”, “Authorized surety”, “Civil money penalty”, “Government-operated supplier”, “National Supplier Clearinghouse (NSC)”, “Penal sum”, “Rider”, “Sufficient evidence”, “Surety bond”, “Unauthorized surety”, and “Unpaid claim”. B. Adding paragraph (c)(26). The additions read as follows: § 424.57 Special payment rules for items furnished by DMEPOS suppliers and issuance of DMEPOS supplier billing privileges.

(a)* * * *Assessment* means a sum certain that CMS or the Office of Inspector General

(OIG)may assess against a DMEPOS supplier under Titles XI, XVIII, or XXI of the Social Security Act or as specified in this chapter. *Authorized surety* means a surety that—

(1)Has been issued a Certificate of Authority by the U.S. Department of the Treasury as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds and the certificate has neither expired nor been revoked; and

(2)Has not been determined by CMS to be an unauthorized surety under this section. *Civil money penalty (CMP)* means a sum that CMS has the authority, as implemented by 42 CFR 402.1(c); or OIG has the authority under section 1128A of the Act or 42 CFR part 1003, to impose on a supplier as a penalty. *Government-operated supplier* is a DMEPOS supplier owned or operated by a Federal, State, or Tribal entity. *National Supplier Clearinghouse*

(NSC)is the contractor that is responsible for the enrollment and re-enrollment process for DMEPOS suppliers. *Penal sum* is a sum to be paid (up to the value of the bond) by the surety as a penalty under the terms of the surety bond when a loss has occurred. *Rider* means a notice issued by a surety that a change in the bond has occurred or would occur. *Sufficient evidence* means the documentation that CMS may supply to the surety in order to establish that a DMEPOS supplier had received Medicare funds in excess of amounts due and payable under the statute and regulations. *Surety bond* means a bond issued by one or more sureties under 31 U.S.C. 9304 through 9308 and 31 CFR parts 223, 224, and 225. *Unauthorized surety* mean a surety that—

(1)Fails, upon written request by the National Supplier Clearinghouse or CMS, to furnish confirmation of the issuance of a surety bond within 30 days.

(2)Fails to furnish evidence of the validity and accuracy of information appearing on a surety bond that a supplier has presented to the NSC or CMS showing the company as surety on the bond.

(3)Fails to pay CMS in full the amount requested, up to the penal sum of the bond when presented with a request for payment within 30 days of written notification. *Unpaid claim* means an overpayment made by the Medicare program to the DMEPOS supplier for which the DMEPOS supplier is responsible, plus accrued interest that is effective 90 days after the date of the notice sent to the DMEPOS supplier of the overpayment. If a written agreement for payment, acceptable to CMS, is made, an *unpaid claim* also means a Medicare overpayment for which the DMEPOS supplier is responsible, plus accrued interest after the DME supplier's default on the arrangement.

(c)* * *

(26)*Surety bond requirements for DMEPOS suppliers.* Except as provided in paragraph (c)(26)(ii) of this section, each DMEPOS supplier that is a Medicare-enrolled DMEPOS supplier must obtain and furnish to the NSC, a surety bond of at least $65,000, from an authorized surety, as defined in paragraph

(a)of this section of this section, for each NPI issued by Medicare.

(i)*Minimum requirements for a DMEPOS supplier.*

(A)A supplier enrolling in the Medicare program, making a change in their existing enrollment information, or responding to a revalidation or reenrollment request must submit a surety bond of $65,000 with its paper or electronic Medicare enrollment application (CMS-855S, OMB number 0938-0685). The term of the initial surety bond must be effective on the date that the application is submitted to the NSC.

(B)A supplier that seeks to become an enrolled DMEPOS supplier through purchase or transfer of assets or ownership interest must provide a surety bond that is effective from the date of the purchase or transfer in order to exercise billing privileges as of that date. If the bond is effective at a later date, the effective date of the new DMEPOS supplier number will be no sooner than the effective date of the surety bond as validated by the NSC.

(C)A DMEPOS supplier seeking to enroll a new location under a tax identification number for which it already has a DMEPOS surety bond in place may obtain a new surety bond or can submit an amendment or rider to the existing bond, showing that the new location is covered by an additional $65,000 surety bond.

(ii)*Exception for Government-operated suppliers.* Government-operated DMEPOS suppliers are provided an exception of the surety bond requirement if the DME supplier has provided CMS with a comparable surety bond under State law, and if it does not have any unpaid claims, CMPs or assessments.

(iii)*Terms of the surety bond.* The terms of the bond submitted by a DMEPOS supplier for the purpose of complying with this section must meet the minimum requirements of liability coverage ($65,000) and surety and DMEPOS supplier responsibility as set forth in this section. CMS requires a supplier to submit a bond that on its face reflects the requirements of this section. CMS will revoke or deny a DMEPOS supplier's billing privileges based upon the submission of a bond that does not reflect the requirements of this section.

(iv)*Specific surety bond requirements.*

(A)The bond must guarantee that the surety must, within 30 days of receiving written notice from CMS containing sufficient evidence to establish the surety's liability under the bond of unpaid claims, CMPs, or assessments, pay CMS a total of up to the full penal amount of the bond in the following amounts: ( *1* ) The amount of any unpaid claim, plus accrued interest, for which the DMEPOS supplier is responsible. ( *2* ) The amount of any unpaid claims, CMPs, or assessments imposed by CMS or OIG on the DMEPOS supplier, plus accrued interest.

(B)The bond must provide the following: The surety is liable for unpaid claims, CMPs, or assessments that are presented to the surety for payment when the surety bond is in effect, regardless of when the payment, overpayment, or other event giving rise to the claim, CMPs, or assessment occurred, provided CMS or OIG make a written demand for payment from the surety during the term of the bond except or after such term in accordance with paragraph (c)(26)(iv)(C) of this section.

(C)If the DMEPOS supplier fails to furnish a bond meeting the requirements of this subpart, fails to submit a rider when required, or if the DMEPOS supplier's billing privileges are revoked, the last bond or rider submitted by the DMEPOS supplier remains in effect until the last day of the surety bond coverage period and the surety remains liable for unpaid claims, CMPs, or assessments that— ( *1* ) CMS or the OIG imposes or asserts against the DMEPOS supplier based on overpayments or other events that took place during the term of the bond or rider; and ( *2* ) Were imposed or assessed by CMS or the OIG during the 2 years following the date that the DMEPOS supplier failed to submit a bond or required rider, or the date the DMEPOS supplier's billing privileges were terminated, whichever is later.

(v)*Cancellation of a bond.* The bond may be canceled by written notice from the DMEPOS supplier to the NSC and the surety. The DMEPOS supplier must provide written notice at least 30 days before the effective date of the action to the NSC and the surety. Cancellation of a surety bond is grounds for revocation of the DMEPOS supplier's Medicare billing privileges unless the DMEPOS supplier provides a new bond before the effective date of the cancellation. The liability of the surety continues through the termination effective date. The bond is automatically canceled and the surety is excused from any liability for future claims after the termination effective date. If CMS receives notification of a lapse in bond coverage from the surety, the DMEPOS supplier's billing privileges will be revoked. The surety must immediately notify the NSC if there is a lapse in bond coverage. The liability of the DMEPOS supplier and the surety to CMS is not extinguished by any of the following:

(A)Any action by the DMEPOS supplier or the surety to make amendment to a conforming bond that will terminate or limit the scope or term of the bond in a manner resulting in the bond no longer conforming to this regulation.

(B)The DMEPOS supplier's failure to continue to meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(26)(i) of this section or CMS determination that the surety is an unauthorized surety as defined in paragraph

(a)of this section.

(C)Revocation of the DMEPOS supplier's billing privileges.

(D)Any action by CMS to suspend, offset, or otherwise recover payments to the DMEPOS supplier unless the action results in complete and final recovery of the debt.

(E)Any action by the DMEPOS supplier to— ( *1* ) Cease operation. ( *2* ) Sell or transfer any asset or ownership interest. ( *3* ) File for bankruptcy. ( *4* ) Fail to pay the surety.

(F)Any fraud, misrepresentation, or negligence by the DMEPOS supplier in obtaining the surety bond or by the surety (or the surety's agent) in issuing the surety bond.

(G)The DMEPOS supplier's failure to exercise available appeal rights under Medicare or to assign the rights to the surety.

(vi)*Actions under the bond.* The bond must provide that actions under the bond may be brought by CMS or by CMS contractors.

(vii)*Required surety information.* The bond must provide the surety's name, street address or post office box number, city, state, and zip code.

(viii)*Submission date and term of the DMEPOS supplier bond.*

(A)Each enrolled DMEPOS supplier that does not meet the criteria for an exception under paragraph (c)(26)(i)(D) of this section must submit to the NSC an initial surety bond before (60 days following the publication date of the final rule).

(B)The type of bond required to be submitted by a DMEPOS supplier under this subpart must be either a continuous bond or an annual bond.

(ix)*Loss of a DMEPOS supplier exception.* A DMEPOS supplier that no longer qualifies for an exception as a government-operated DMEPOS supplier described in paragraph (c)(26)(ii) of this section must submit a surety bond to the NSC within 60 days after it knows or has reason to know that it no longer meets the criteria for an exception.

(x)*Change of surety.* A DMEPOS supplier that obtains a replacement surety bond from a different surety to cover the remaining term of a previously obtained bond must submit the new surety bond to the NSC at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the previous bond. There must be no gap in the coverage of the bond periods. If a gap in coverage exists, the NSC will revoke the supplier's billing privileges and not pay for any items or services furnished by the DMEPOS supplier during the period for which no bond coverage was available. If a DMEPOS supplier changes its surety during the term of the bond, the new surety will be responsible for any overpayments, CMPs, or assessments incurred by the DMEPOS supplier beginning with the effective date of the new surety bond. The previous surety is responsible for any overpayments, CMPs, or assessments that occurred up to the date of the change of surety.

(xi)*Parties to the bond.* The surety bond must name the DMEPOS supplier as Principal, CMS as Obligee, and the surety (and its heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assignees, jointly and severally) as surety.

(xii)*Effect of DMEPOS supplier's failure to obtain, maintain, and timely file a surety bond.*

(A)CMS will revoke the DMEPOS supplier's billing privileges if an enrolled supplier fails to obtain, file timely, or maintain a surety bond as specified in this subpart and CMS instructions. Notwithstanding paragraph

(d)of this section, the revocation will be effective with the date the bond lapsed and any payments for items furnished on or after that date must be repaid to CMS by the DMEPOS supplier.

(B)CMS will deny billing privileges to a supplier if the supplier seeking to become an enrolled DMEPOS supplier fails to obtain and file timely a surety bond as specified with this subpart and CMS instructions.

(xiii)*Evidence of DMEPOS supplier's compliance.* CMS may at any time require a DMEPOS supplier to show compliance with the requirements of this subpart.

(xiv)*Effect of subsequent DMEPOS supplier payment.* If a surety has paid an amount to CMS on the basis of liability incurred under a bond and CMS subsequently collects from the DMEPOS supplier, in whole or in part, on the unpaid claim, CMPs, or assessment that was the basis for the surety's liability, CMS will reimburse the surety the amount that it collected from the DMEPOS supplier, up to the amount paid by the surety to CMS, provided the surety has no other liability to CMS under the bond.

(xv)*Effect of review reversing determination.* If a DMEPOS supplier has paid CMS on the basis of liability incurred under a bond and to the extent the DMEPOS supplier that obtained the bond (or the surety under paragraph

(m)of this section) is subsequently successful in appealing the determination that was the basis of the unpaid claim or CMPs, or assessment that caused the DMEPOS supplier to pay CMS under the bond, CMS would refund the DMEPOS supplier the amount the DMEPOS supplier paid to CMS to the extent that the amount relates to the matter that was successfully appealed, provided all review, including judicial review, has been completed on the matter. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Program No. 93.774, Medicare—Supplementary Medical Insurance Program) Dated: April 10, 2007. Leslie V. Norwalk, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Approved: June 22, 2007. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-3746 Filed 7-27-07; 4:00 pm]

Connectionstraces to 19

Traces to 19 documents