Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 76945

for ‘‘Exterior primer’’ and ‘‘Large

commercial aircraft’’ to read as follows:

§ 63.742 Definitions.

* * * * *

Exterior primer means the first layer

and any subsequent layers of identically

formulated coating applied to the

exterior surface of an aerospace vehicle

or component where the component is

used on the exterior of the aerospace

vehicle. Exterior primers are typically

used for corrosion prevention,

protection from the environment,

functional fluid resistance, and

adhesion of subsequent exterior

topcoats. Coatings that are defined as

specialty coatings are not included

under this definition.

* * * * *

Large commercial aircraft means an

aircraft of more than 110,000 pounds,

maximum certified take-off weight

manufactured for non-military use.

* * * * *

3. Section 63.745 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to read

as follows:

§ 63.745 Standards: Primer and topcoat

application operations.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Organic HAP emissions from

primers shall be limited to an organic

HAP content level of no more than: 540

g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of primer (less water), as

applied, for general aviation rework

facilities; or 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) of

exterior primer (less water), as applied,

to large commercial aircraft components

(parts or assemblies) or fully assembled,

large commercial aircraft at existing

affected sources that produce fully

assembled, large commercial aircraft; or

350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) of primer (less

water), as applied.

(2) VOC emissions from primers shall

be limited to a VOC content level of no

more than: 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of primer

(less water and exempt solvents), as

applied, for general aviation rework

facilities; or 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) of

exterior primer (less water and exempt

solvents), as applied, to large

commercial aircraft components (parts

or assemblies) or fully assembled, large

commercial aircraft at existing affected

sources that produce fully assembled,

large commercial aircraft; or 350 g/L (2.9

lb/gal) of primer (less water and exempt

solvents), as applied.

* * * * *

4. Section 63.751 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) introductory text

to read as follows:

§ 63.751 Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *

(b) Incinerators and carbon adsorbersinitial compliance demonstrations. Each

owner or operator subject to the

requirements in this subpart must

demonstrate initial compliance with the

requirements of §§ 63.745(d), 63.746(c),

and 63.747(d) of this subpart. Each

owner or operator using a carbon

adsorber to comply with the

requirements in this subpart shall

comply with the requirements specified

in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this

section. Each owner or operator using

an incinerator to comply with the

requirements in this subpart shall

comply with the requirements specified

in paragraphs (b)(8) through (12) of this

section.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–31331 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6913–2]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final deletion of the

University of Minnesota Rosemount

Research Center Superfund Site from

the National Priorities List (NPL).

SUMMARY: EPA Region 5 announces the

deletion of the University of Minnesota

Rosemount Research Center Site (Site)

from the National Priorities List (NPL)

and requests public comment on this

action. The NPL constitutes appendix B

of 40 CFR Part 300 which is the

National Oil and Hazardous Substance

Pollution Continency Plan (NCP), which

EPA promulgated pursuant to Section

105 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act of 1980, as amended,

(CERCLA). EPA and the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) have

determined that the Site poses no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, further

remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA

are not appropriate.

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ action will be

effective February 6, 2001 unless EPA

receives dissenting comments by

January 8, 2001. If written dissenting

comments are received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the rule

in the Federal Register informing the

public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Gladys Beard, Associate Remedial

Project Manager, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Superfund Division,

U.S. EPA, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson

Blvd., (SR–6J), Chicago, IL 60604.

Requests for comprehensive information

on this Site is available through the

public docket which is available for

viewing at the Site Information

Repository at the following location:

The Minnesota Pollution Control

Agency, Administrative Records, 520

Lafayette Road North, Saint Paul,

Minnesota 55155–4184.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gladys Beard (SR–6J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

W. Jackson, Chicago, IL, (312) 886–7253,

FAX (312) 886–4071, e-mail

beard.gladys@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion

V. Action

I. Introduction

EPA Region 5 announces the deletion

of the releases from the University of

Minnesota Rosemont Research Center

Site, Rosemount, Dakota County,

Minnesota, from the National Priorities

List (NPL), appendix B of the National

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part

300. EPA identifies sites that appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

maintains the NPL as the list of these

sites. EPA and the State of Minnesota

have determined that the remedial

action for the Site has been successfully

executed. EPA will accept comments on

this notice thirty days after publication

of this notice in the Federal Register.

Section II of this action explains the

criteria for deleting sites from the NPL.

Section III discusses the procedures that

EPA is using for this action. Section IV

discusses the history of the University

of Minnesota Site and explains how the

Site meets the deletion criteria. Section

V states EPA’s action to delete the

releases of the Site from the NPL unless

dissenting comments are received

during the comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP

provides that Sites may be deleted from,

or recategorized on the NPL where no

further response is appropriate. In

making a determination to delete a

release from the NPL, EPA shall

consider, in consultation with the state,

76946 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

whether any of the following criteria has

been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other

persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed

responses under CERCLA have been

implemented, and no further response

action by responsible parties is

appropriate; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has

shown that the release poses no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, taking of

remedial measures is not appropriate.

Even if the release is deleted from the

NPL, where hazardous substances,

pollutants, or contaminants remain at

the site above levels that allow for

unlimited use and unrestricted

exposure, EPA’s policy is that a

subsequent review of the Site will be

conducted at least every five years after

the initiation of the remedial action at

the Site to ensure that the Site remains

protective of public health and the

environment. In the case of this Site,

EPA conducted a Five-Year Review in

June, 1997 and a second one is due June

2002. Based on these reviews, EPA

determined that conditions at the Site

remain protective of public health and

the environment. As explained below,

the Site meets the NCP’s deletion

criteria listed above. If new information

becomes available which indicates a

need for further action, EPA may initiate

remedial actions. Whenever there is a

significant release from a site deleted

from the NPL, the site shall be restored

to the NPL without the application of

the Hazard Ranking System (HRS).

III. Deletion Procedures

The following procedures were used

for the intended deletion of releases

from the Site: (1) All appropriate

response under CERCLA has been

implemented and no further action by

EPA is appropriate; (2) the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency concurred

with the proposed deletion decision; (3)

a notice has been published in the local

newspaper and has been distributed to

appropriate federal, state, and local

officials and other interested parties

announcing the commencement of a 30-

day dissenting public comment period

on EPA’s Direct Final Action to Delete;

and, (4) all relevant documents have

been made available for public review

in the local Site information

repositories. EPA is requesting only

dissenting comments on the Direct Final

Action to Delete.

For deletion of releases from the Site,

EPA’s Regional Office will accept and

evaluate public comments on EPA’s

Final Notice before making a final

decision to delete. If necessary, the

Agency will prepare a Responsiveness

Summary, responding to each

significant comment submitted during

the public comment period. Deletion of

the Site from the NPL does not itself

create, alter, or revoke any individual’s

rights or obligations. The NPL is

designed primarily for informational

purposes and to assist Agency

management. As mentioned in Section

II of this document, § 300.425(e)(3) of

the NCP states that the deletion of a

release from a site from the NPL does

not preclude eligibility for future

response actions.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

The University of Minnesota

Rosemount Research Center (UMRRC) is

located within the city limits of

Rosemount in Dakota County,

approximately 20 miles southeast of the

Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area.

The UMRRC covers approximately five

square miles and is used by some light

manufacturing and service companies.

Within the confines of the UMRRC, the

UMRRC Site consists of three industrial

disposal sites: the George’s Used

Equipment (GUE) site, the Porter

Electric and Machine Company (PE)

site, and the U.S. Transformer (UST)

site. The University also burned

discarded laboratory chemicals in a

burn pit area on the Site.

The University and the MPCA signed

a Response Action Agreement on May

30, 1985, under the Minnesota

Environmental Response and Liability

Act (MERLA) for the cleanup of the

UMRRC Site groundwater and soil. In

December 1987, the UMRRC Site was

placed on the National Priority List.

Remedial Investigation (RI) activities

were conducted under the Agreement

from 1984 through 1988.

The RI determined that soil and

concrete at all three disposal sites were

contaminated by polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs). In addition, the GUE

site was also found to be contaminated

with lead and copper. PCBs in the soil

were as high as 63,000 parts per million

(ppm) and lead was as high as 40,000

ppm. Groundwater at the site was found

to be contaminated with chloroform

from the burn pit area. The highest

concentration of chloroform found was

72 parts per billion (ppb) in a

monitoring well one mile from the burn

pit.

The GUE site was used as an electrical

storage and salvage facility, as well as a

general salvage facility between 1968

and 1985. Activities at this site resulted

in soil and concrete contamination by

lead and PCBs. The PE site was used for

storage and reconditioning of used

industrial electrical equipment. Soil at

this site is contaminated with PCBs. The

UST site was used for dismantling and

salvaging electrical transformers. Soil

and concrete at the UST site was

contaminated with PCBs.

After reviewing the results of the RI/

Feasibility Study (FS), the MPCA

completed a ROD on June 11, 1990; EPA

concurred with the ROD on June 29,

1990. The selected remedy had five

major components:

1. Excavating approximately 6,500

cubic yards of soil and concrete

contaminated with greater than 25 ppm

PCBs and approximately 2,600 cubic

yards of soil contaminated with copper

and lead where the soil exceed 1,000

ppm lead;

2. Consolidating approximately

15,000 cubic yards of soil from the three

disposal sites contaminated with PCBs

which ranged in concentration from 10

to 25 ppm PCBs at GUE and restricting

access;

3. Thermally destroying the PCBs in

the soil and concrete;

4. Transporting the soil contaminated

with lead and copper to an off-site

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA)-permitted landfill;

transporting lead contaminated soil

which also contained PCBs to a Toxic

Substances Control Agency (TSCA)/

RCRA-permitted landfill; and

5. Backfilling with clean soil, grading

and establishing vegetation.

The ROD also included a groundwater

pump and treatment system for the

chloroform contaminated groundwater.

It should be noted that the groundwater

pump and treatment system was in

place and operating at the time the ROD

was written. The pump and treatment

system had already been completed by

the University as a part of its response

under the MERLA Response Action

Agreement.

During July and August 1990, the

University disposed of soil

contaminated with lead and copper. The

soil contaminated with lead and copper

was disposed of at the Adams Center

Landfill located in Ft. Wayne, Indiana,

a RCRA-permitted landfill. Lead

contaminated soil containing greater

than 49 ppm PCBs was disposed of at

the Chemical Waste Management, Inc.,

Landfill in Emelle, Alabama, a TSCA/

RCRA-permitted landfill.

Based on a request from the

University, the ROD was modified in

August 1991 with the completion of an

Explanation of Significant Difference

(ESD) by the MPCA and EPA. The

changes approved in the ESD were:

1. Allowing the University the option

of using either on-site incineration or

the previously approved alternative of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 76947

thermal desorption to vaporize and

destroy the PCB’s;

2. Allowing the University to restrict

access to the three disposal sites with

soil PCB levels which ranged between

10 and 25 ppm PCBs rather than

consolidating this soil; and

3. Requiring the University to perform

a review of the effectiveness of the

remedial action three years after

completion of the remedy rather than

three years after the approval of the

remedial action clean-up plan.

In order to operate a thermal

destruction unit in the State of

Minnesota, the MPCA issued the

University an ‘‘ Authorization to Install

and Operate a Thermal Destruction

Unit, University of Minnesota

Rosemount Research Station,’’

(Authorization to Burn) on December

27, 1991. The Authorization to Burn

was modified on February 3, 1992, and

August 17, 1992. These modifications

reduced the scope of the Authorization

to Burn based on additional information

received from the University and from

Roy F. Weston, Inc. (Weston), the

University’s clean-up contractor.

The University chose to destroy the

PCBs using the on-site incineration

option. Weston began site activities on

June 30, 1992; began incinerating

contaminated soil at the Site in March

1993; and completed the thermal

destruction of soil and concrete in July

1993.

The MPCA approved the shutdown of

the pump and treatment system on

October 30, 1991. This was in part due

to the Minnesota Department of Health

(MDH) changing its Recommended

Allowable Limit (RAL) for chloroform

from 5 to 57 ppb. The groundwater was

also found to meet other state

groundwater drinking water criteria.

On June 1, 1993, the University

requested that it be allowed to

consolidate PCB contaminated soil

which ranged between 10 and 25 ppm

at GUE as originally described in the

ROD. The University decided that it was

now more feasible to consolidate the

soil than was envisioned at the time of

the first ESD. The ESD also indicated

that all remaining soil contaminated

with one to 10 ppm PCBs will be

covered with 10 inches of clean fill in

order to comply with the TSCA PCB

Spill Policy and to provide unrestricted

access to these areas. The MPCA

prepared a second ESD to address these

changes and EPA concurred with the

ESD on October 1, 1993.

On September 24, 1993, the EPA and

the MPCA performed the preliminary

site inspection. At that time, the remedy

was substantially complete with the

exception of consolidating a small

amount of soil into the GUE depression

and also transporting a small quantity of

soil to an off-site landfill. A final site

inspection was conducted on September

20, 1994, and all construction activities

were found to be completed.

V. Action

The remedy selected for this Site has

been implemented in accordance with

the Record of Decision and subsequent

Explanation of Significant Difference.

The remedy has resulted in the

significant reduction of the long-term

potential for release of contaminants,

therefore, human health and potential

environmental impacts have been

minimized. EPA and the State of

Minnesota find that the remedies

implemented continue to provide

adequate protection of human health the

environment.

The MPCA concurs with EPA that the

criteria for deletion of releases have

been met. Therefore, EPA is deleting the

Site from the NPL.

This action will be effective February

6, 2001. However, if EPA receives

dissenting comments by January 8,

2001, EPA will publish a document that

withdraws this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: November 28, 2000.

Elissa Speizman,

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA, Region

5.

Part 300, title 40 of chapter 1 of the

Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

Part 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 300

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR.,

1991 Comp.; p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,

3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p.193.

Appendix B—[Amended]

2. Table 1 of appendix B to Part 300

is amended by removing the site for

‘‘University of Minnesota Rosemount,

Res Cen, Rosemount, Minnesota.’’

[FR Doc. 00–31191 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2681, MM Docket No. 00–97; RM–

9865]

Digital Television Broadcast Services;

Richmond, VA

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the

request of Central Virginia Educational

Telecommunications Corporation,

licensee of noncommercial station

WCVE–TV, substitutes DTV Channel

*42 for station WCVE–TV’s assigned

DTV Channel *24a at Richmond,

Virginia. See 65 FR 36808, June 12,

2000. DTV Channel *42 can be allotted

to Richmond at coordinates ( 37–30–46

N. and 77–36–06 W.) with a power of

100, HAAT of 327 meters and with a

DTV service population of 1097

thousand.

With this action, this proceeding is

terminated.

DATE: Effective January 16, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam

Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 00–97,

adopted November 30, 2000, and

released December 1, 2000. The full text

of this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Digital television broadcasting,

Television.

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334. 336.

§ 73.622 [Amended]

2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of

Digital Television Allotments under

Virginia, is amended by removing DTV

Channel *24d and adding DTV Channel

*42 at Richmond.