(iii) Inspections are conducted in a way that uses documented
methodologies that incorporate adequate quality control procedures.

    (iv) A report is developed that clearly documents the results of the
inspection.

    (v) Records are retained by the certified inspector or the firm.

    (2) The work practice standards for risk assessment must require
that:

    (i) Risk assessments are conducted only by individuals certified by
the appropriate State or Tribal authority to conduct risk assessments.

    (ii) Risk assessments are conducted in a way that identifies and
reports the presence of lead-based paint hazards.

    (iii) Risk assessments consist of, at least:

    (A) An assessment, including a visual inspection, of the physical
characteristics of the residential dwelling or child-occupied facility;
and

    (B) Environmental sampling for lead in paint, dust, and soil.

    (iv) The risk assessor develops a report that clearly presents the
results of the assessment and recommendations for the control or
elimination of all identified hazards.

    (v) The certified risk assessor or the firm retains the appropriate
records.

    (3) The work practice standards for abatement must require that:

    (i) Abatements are conducted only by individuals certified by the
appropriate State or Tribal authority to conduct or supervise
abatements.

    (ii) Abatements permanently eliminate lead-based paint hazards and
are conducted in a way that does not increase the hazards of lead-based
paint to the occupants of the dwelling or child-occupied facility.

    (iii) Abatements include post-abatement lead in dust clearance
sampling and conformance with clearance levels established or adopted by
the State or Indian Tribe.

    (iv) The abatement contractor develops a report that describes areas
of the residential dwelling or child-occupied facility abated and the
techniques employed.

    (v) The certified abatement contractor or the firm retains
appropriate records.

Sec. 745.326  Pre-renovation notification: State and Tribal program
requirements.

    (a) Program elements. To receive authorization from EPA, a State or
Tribal program must contain the following program elements for
renovation disclosure:

    (1) Procedures and requirements for the distribution of lead hazard
information to owners and occupants of target housing before renovations
for compensation; and

    (2) An approved lead hazard information pamphlet meeting the
requirements of section 406 of TSCA, as determined by EPA. EPA will
provide States or Tribes with guidance on what is necessary for a State
or Tribal pamphlet approval application.

    (b) Program to distribute lead information. To be considered at
least as protective as the Federal requirements for pre-renovation
distribution of information, the State or Indian Tribe must have
procedures and requirements that establish:

    (1) Clear standards for identifying home improvement activities that
trigger the pamphlet distribution requirements; and

    (2) Procedures for distributing the lead hazard information to
owners and occupants of the housing prior to renovation activities.

    (c) Distribution of acceptable lead hazard information. To be
considered at least as protective as the Federal requirements for the
distribution of a lead hazard information pamphlet, the State or Indian
Tribe must either:

    (1) Distribute the lead hazard information pamphlet developed by EPA
under section 406(a) of TSCA, titled Protect Your Family from Lead in
Your Home; or

    (2) Distribute an alternate pamphlet or package of lead hazard
information that has been submitted by the State or Tribe, reviewed by
EPA, and approved by EPA for use in that State or Tribe. Such
information must meet the content requirements prescribed by section
406(a) of TSCA, and be in a format that is readable to the diverse
audience of housing owners and occupants in that State or Tribe.

Sec. 745.327  State or Indian Tribal lead-based paint compliance and
enforcement programs.

    (a) Approval of compliance and enforcement programs. A State or
Indian Tribe seeking authorization of a lead-based paint program can
apply for and receive either interim or final approval of the compliance
and enforcement program portion of its lead-based paint program. Indian
Tribes are not required to exercise criminal enforcement jurisdiction as
a condition for program authorization.

    (1) Interim approval. Interim approval of the compliance and
enforcement program portion of the State or Tribal lead-based paint
program may be granted by EPA only once, and subject to a specific
expiration date.

    (i) To be considered adequate for purposes of obtaining interim
approval for the compliance and enforcement program portion of a State
or Tribal lead-based paint program, a State or Indian Tribe must, in its
application described at Sec. 745.324(a):

    (A) Demonstrate it has the legal authority and ability to
immediately implement the elements in paragraph (b) of this section.
This demonstration shall include a statement that the State or Indian
Tribe, during the interim approval period, shall carry out a level of
compliance monitoring and enforcement necessary to ensure that the State
or Indian Tribe addresses any significant risks posed by noncompliance
with lead-based paint activity requirements.

    (B) Present a plan with time frames identified for implementing in
the field each element in paragraph (c) of this section. All elements of
paragraph (c) of this section must be fully implemented no later than 3
years from the date of EPA’s interim approval of the compliance and
enforcement program portion of a State or Tribal lead-based paint
program. A statement of resources must be included in the State or
Tribal plan which identifies what resources the State or Indian Tribe
intends to devote to the administration of its lead-based paint
compliance and enforcement program.

    (C) Agree to submit to EPA the Summary on Progress and Performance
of lead-based paint compliance and enforcement activities as described
at paragraph (d) of this section.

    (ii) Any interim approval granted by EPA for the compliance and
enforcement program portion of a State or Tribal lead-based paint
program will expire no later than 3 years from the date of EPA’s
interim approval. One hundred and eighty days prior to this expiration
date, a State or Indian Tribe shall apply to EPA for final approval of
the compliance and enforcement program portion of a State or Tribal
lead-based paint program. Final approval shall be given to any State or
Indian Tribe which has in place all of the elements of paragraphs (b),
(c), and (d) of this section. If a State or Indian Tribe does not
receive final approval for the compliance and enforcement program
portion of a State or Tribal lead-based paint program by the date 3
years after the date of EPA’s interim approval, the Administrator
shall, by such date, initiate the process to withdraw the State or
Indian Tribe’s authorization pursuant to Sec. 745.324(i).

    (2) Final approval. Final approval of the compliance and enforcement
program portion of a State or Tribal lead-based paint program can be
granted by EPA either through the application process described at Sec.
745.324(a), or, for States or Indian Tribes which previously received
interim approval as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section,
through a separate application addressing only the compliance and
enforcement program portion of a State or Tribal lead-based paint
program.

    (i) For the compliance and enforcement program to be considered
adequate for final approval through the application described at Sec.
745.324(a), a State or Indian Tribe must, in its application:

    (A) Demonstrate it has the legal authority and ability to
immediately implement the elements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section.

    (B) Submit a statement of resources which identifies what resources
the State or Indian Tribe intends to devote to the administration of its
lead-based paint compliance and enforcement program.

    (C) Agree to submit to EPA the Summary on Progress and Performance
of lead-based paint compliance and enforcement activities as described
at paragraph (d) of this section.

    (ii) For States or Indian Tribes which previously received interim
approval as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, in order for
the State or Tribal compliance and enforcement program to be considered
adequate for final approval through a separate application addressing
only the compliance and enforcement program portion of a State or Tribal
lead-based paint program, a State or Indian Tribe must, in its
application:

    (A) Demonstrate that it has the legal authority and ability to
immediately implement the elements in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section.

    (B) Submit a statement which identifies the resources the State or
Indian Tribe intends to devote to the administration of its lead-based
paint compliance and enforcement program.

    (C) Agree to submit to EPA the Summary on Progress and Performance
of lead-based paint compliance and enforcement activities as described
at paragraph (d) of this section.

    (D) To the extent not previously submitted through the application
described at Sec. 745.324(a), submit copies of all applicable State or
Tribal statutes, regulations, standards, and other material that provide
the State or Indian Tribe with authority to administer and enforce the
lead-based paint compliance and enforcement program, and copies of the
policies, certifications, plans, reports, and any other documents that
demonstrate that the program meets the requirements established in
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.

    (b) Standards, regulations, and authority. The standards,
regulations, and authority described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4)
of this section are part of the required elements for the compliance and
enforcement portion of a State or Tribal lead-based paint program.

    (1) Lead-based paint activities and requirements. State or Tribal
lead-based paint compliance and enforcement programs will be considered
adequate if the State or Indian Tribe demonstrates, in its application
at Sec. 745.324(a), that it has established a lead-based paint program
containing the following requirements:

    (i) Accreditation of training programs as described at Sec.
745.325(b).

    (ii) Certification of individuals engaged in lead-based paint
activities as described at Sec. 745.325(c).

    (iii) Standards for the conduct of lead-based paint activities as
described at Sec. 745.325(d); and, as appropriate,

    (iv) Requirements that regulate the conduct of pre-renovation
notification activities as described at Sec. 745.326.

    (2) Authority to enter. State or Tribal officials must be able to
enter, through consent, warrant, or other authority, premises or
facilities where lead-based paint activities violations may occur for
purposes of conducting inspections.

    (i) State or Tribal officials must be able to enter premises or
facilities where those engaged in training for lead-based paint
activities conduct business.

    (ii) For the purposes of enforcing a pre-renovation notification
program, State or Tribal officials must be able to enter a renovator’s
place of business.

    (iii) State or Tribal officials must have authority to take samples
and review records as part of the lead-based paint activities inspection
process.

    (3) Flexible remedies. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance
and enforcement program must provide for a diverse and flexible array of
enforcement remedies. At a minimum, the remedies that must be reflected
in an enforcement response policy must include the following:

    (i) Warning letters, Notices of Noncompliance, Notices of Violation,
or the equivalent;

    (ii) Administrative or civil actions, including penalty authority
(e.g., accreditation or certification suspension, revocation, or
modification); and

    (iii) Authority to apply criminal sanctions or other criminal
authority using existing State or Tribal laws, as applicable.

    (4) Adequate resources. An application must include a statement that
identifies the resources that will be devoted by the State or Indian
Tribe to the administration of the State or Tribal lead-based paint
compliance and enforcement program. This statement must address fiscal
and personnel resources that will be devoted to the program.

    (c) Performance elements. The performance elements described in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(7) of this section are part of the
required elements for the compliance and enforcement program portion of
a State or Tribal lead-based paint program.

    (1) Training. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance and
enforcement program must implement a process for training enforcement
and inspection personnel and ensure that enforcement personnel and
inspectors are well trained. Enforcement personnel must understand case
development procedures and the maintenance of proper case files.
Inspectors must successfully demonstrate knowledge of the requirements
of the particular discipline (e.g., abatement supervisor, and/or
abatement worker, and/or lead-based paint inspector, and/or risk

assessor, and/or project designer) for which they have compliance
monitoring and enforcement responsibilities. Inspectors must also be
trained in violation discovery, methods of obtaining consent, evidence
gathering, preservation of evidence and chain-of-custody, and sampling
procedures. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance and
enforcement program must also implement a process for the continuing
education of enforcement and inspection personnel.

    (2) Compliance assistance. A State or Tribal lead-based paint
compliance and enforcement program must provide compliance assistance to
the public and the regulated community to facilitate awareness and
understanding of and compliance with State or Tribal requirements

governing the conduct of lead-based paint activities. The type and
nature of this assistance can be defined by the State or Indian Tribe to
achieve this goal.

    (3) Sampling techniques. A State or Tribal lead-based paint
compliance and enforcement program must have the technological
capability to ensure compliance with the lead-based paint program
requirements. A State or Tribal application for approval of a lead-based
paint program must show that the State or Indian Tribe is
technologically capable of conducting a lead-based paint compliance and
enforcement program. The State or Tribal program must have access to the
facilities and equipment necessary to perform sampling and laboratory
analysis as needed. This laboratory facility must be a recognized
laboratory as defined at Sec. 745.223, or the State or Tribal program
must implement a quality assurance program that ensures appropriate
quality of laboratory personnel and protects the integrity of analytical
data.

    (4) Tracking tips and complaints. A State or Tribal lead-based paint
compliance and enforcement program must demonstrate the ability to
process and react to tips and complaints or other information indicating
a violation.

    (5) Targeting inspections. A State or Tribal lead-based paint
compliance and enforcement program must demonstrate the ability to
target inspections to ensure compliance with the lead-based paint
program requirements. Such targeting must include a method for obtaining
and using notifications of commencement of abatement activities.

    (6) Follow up to inspection reports. A State or Tribal lead-based
paint compliance and enforcement program must demonstrate the ability to

reasonably, and in a timely manner, process and follow-up on inspection

reports and other information generated through enforcement-related
activities associated with a lead-based paint program. The State or
Tribal program must be in a position to ensure correction of violations
and, as appropriate, effectively develop and issue enforcement
remedies/responses to follow up on the identification of violations.

    (7) Compliance monitoring and enforcement. A State or Tribal
lead-based paint compliance and enforcement program must demonstrate, in
its application for approval, that it is in a position to implement a
compliance monitoring and enforcement program. Such a compliance
monitoring and enforcement program must ensure correction of violations,
and encompass either planned and/or responsive lead-based paint
compliance inspections and development/issuance of State or Tribal
enforcement responses which are appropriate to the violations.

    (d) Summary on Progress and Performance. The Summary on Progress and
Performance described below is part of the required elements for the
compliance and enforcement program portion of a State or Tribal
lead-based paint program. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance
and enforcement program must submit to the appropriate EPA Regional
Administrator a report which summarizes the results of implementing the
State or Tribal lead-

based paint compliance and enforcement program, including a summary of
the scope of the regulated community within the State or Indian Tribe
(which would include the number of individuals and firms certified in
lead-based paint activities and the number of training programs

accredited), the inspections conducted, enforcement actions taken,
compliance assistance provided, and the level of resources committed by
the State or Indian Tribe to these activities. The report shall be
submitted according to the requirements at Sec. 745.324(h).

    (e) Memorandum of Agreement. An Indian Tribe that obtains program
approval must establish a Memorandum of Agreement with the Regional
Administrator. The Memorandum of Agreement shall be executed by the
Indian Tribe’s counterpart to the State Director (e.g., the Director
of Tribal Environmental Office, Program or Agency). The Memorandum of
Agreement must include provisions for the timely and appropriate
referral to the Regional Administrator for those criminal enforcement
matters where that Indian Tribe does not have the authority (e.g., those
addressing criminal violations by non-Indians or violations meriting
penalties over $5,000). The Agreement must also identify any enforcement
agreements that may exist between the Indian Tribe and any State.

Sec. 745.330   Grants.

    (a) The Administrator may make grants to States and Indian Tribes,
under section 404(g) of TSCA to develop and, if authorized, carry out
lead-based paint activities programs to ensure that individuals employed
in lead-based paint activities are properly trained; that training
programs are accredited; and that contractors employed in such
activities are certified, pursuant to this subpart. The Administrator
may treat a tribe as eligible to apply for a TSCA section 404(g) grant

if the tribe:

    (1) Is recognized by the Secretary of Interior.

    (2) Has an existing government exercising substantial governmental
duties and powers.

    (3) Has adequate authority to carry out the grant activities.

    (4) Is reasonably expected to be capable, in the Administrator’s
judgment, of administering the grant program.

    (b) If the Administrator has previously determined that an Indian
tribe has met the prerequisites in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this
section for another EPA program, the tribe need provide only that
information unique to the TSCA section 404(g) grant program required by
paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of this section. Grants made under this
section are subject to the requirements of part 31 of this chapter.

[63 FR 41432, Aug. 4, 1998]

Sec. 745.339  Effective dates.

    States and Indian Tribes may seek authorization to administer and
enforce subpart L pursuant to this subpart effective October 28, 1996.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21258-21260]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08392]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0030]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; Patriot Challenge Kayak Race, Ashley
River; Charleston, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for
the Patriot Challenge Kayak Race in Charleston, SC. The race will take
place on April 13, 2013, on the Ashley River. This special local
regulation is necessary to insure the safety of life on navigable
waters of the United States during the race. The special local
regulation will temporarily restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the
Ashley River, preventing non-participant vessels from entering the
regulated areas.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10 a.m. until 12 p.m. on April 13,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2013-0030. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call Chief Warrant Officer Christopher Ruleman, Sector Charleston
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard
did not receive necessary information about the event until January 22,
2013. As a result, the Coast Guard did not have sufficient time to
publish an NPRM and to receive public comments prior to the event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, a 30 day notice period would be impracticable.
Additionally, a delayed effective date would be contrary to the public
interest because immediate action is needed to minimize potential
danger to the race participant's participant vessels, spectators and
the general public.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the
rule is to insure safety of life on navigable waters of the United
States during three Charleston Race Week sailboat races.
    On Saturday, April 13, 2013, the Patriot Challenge Kayak Race is
scheduled to take place on the waters of the Ashley River and
Charleston Harbor. The race will commence at Brittlebank Park, transit
south in the Ashley River, head north between Shutes Folly Island and
the Charleston peninsula, and then turn around in Tidewater Reach. The
race will then return to Brittlebank Park by the same route. The event
consists of a large number of kayakers whose speeds are incomparable to
powerboats. There will be safety vessels preceding the first
participant kayakers, and following the last participant kayakers. The
event poses significant risks to participants, spectators, and the
boating public because of the large number of paddlers and recreational
vessels that are expected in the area of the event. The special local
regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants,
spectators, and vessels from the hazards associated with the event.

C. Discussion of Rule

    The special local regulation will designate a temporary special
local regulation, on the Ashley River and Charleston Harbor in
Charleston, South Carolina. The special local regulation will be
enforced from 10 a.m. until 12 p.m. on April 13, 2013. Persons and
vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the
safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative.
    Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port
Charleston by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will
provide notice of the special local regulation by Local Notice to
Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated
representatives.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order
13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under
that Order.
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (1) The rule will be in effect for only three hours;
(2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the buffer zones without
authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated
representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the
effective period; (3) persons and

vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the buffer zones if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative; and (4) advance notification will be made
to the local maritime community via broadcast notice to mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that
portion of the Ashley River encompassed within the special local
regulation between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on April 13, 2013. For the
reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above,
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in
conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Commandant
Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T07-0030 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T07-0030  Special Local Regulation; Patriot Challenge Kayak
Race, Ashley River; Charleston, SC.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following regulated area is established as
a special local regulation: All waters within a moving zone, beginning
at Brittlebank Park, transiting south in the Ashley River, heading
north between Shutes Folly Island and the Charleston peninsula, and
then turning around in Tidewater Reach. The race will then return to
Brittlebank Park by the same route in reverse order. The zone will at
all times extend 75 yards both in front of the lead safety vessel
preceding the first race participants; 75 yards behind the safety
vessel trailing the last race participants; and at all times extending
100 yards on either side of participating race and safety vessels.
Information regarding the identity of the lead safety vessel and the
last safety vessel will be provided 1 day prior to the race via
broadcast notice to mariners and marine safety information bulletins.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated
areas.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) All persons and vessels, except those participating in the
Patriot Challenge or serving as safety vessels, are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Charleston by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16 to request authorization. If
authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated areas is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
permission must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port
Charleston or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas
through advanced notice via broadcast notice to mariners and by on-
scene designated representatives.
    (d) Effective Date. The rule is effective from 10:00 a.m. until
12:00 p.m. on April 13, 2013.

    Dated: March 28, 2013.
M.F. White,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2013-08392 Filed 4-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Barbara Leczynski 06/ 12/ 2003 12: 49 PM To: Mary Dominiak/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: ( bcc: Mary Dominiak/ DC/ USEPA/ US) Subject: Scheduling PFOA Technical Workgroup Meetings You are receiving this message because you have expressed an interest in receiving information concerning the Agency's enforceable consent agreement ( ECA) negotiation process on perfluorooctanoic acid ( PFOA) and the fluorinated telomers, OPPT 2003 0012. If you no longer wish to receive this information, please send an email response to dominiak. mary@ epa. gov requesting that you be removed from this notification list.

****************************************************************************************

TO: Members of PFOA ECA Technical Workgroups 3M, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Environmental Working Group, Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group, Little Hocking Water Association, National Center for Policy Research for Women and Families, Rich Purdy, Telomer Research Program, Tuppers Plains Chester Water District, and WV Class Action Plaintiffs At the public meeting on June 6, 2003, four technical workgroups were established to address specific issues embodied within the EPA's Preliminary Framework document identifying perceived data needs with respect to perfluorooctanoic acid ( PFOA) and fluorinated telomers. Initial meetings of these workgroups were suggested for some time during the weeks of June 16 or June 23, 2003. Parties requested that workgroup meetings be scheduled for consecutive days, and that no meetings be run in parallel, in order to allow participants to take part in multiple workgroups and to minimize travel expenses.

EPA is proposing to schedule the workgroup meetings for Monday and Tuesday, June 23 and 24, 2003, in Washington, DC. These dates were selected because several parties spontaneously indicated that holding meetings during the week of June 16 would not give them sufficient time to prepare, and that other commitments on Wednesday, June 25, would prohibit a number of parties from being able to participate at all.

As discussed at the June 6 public meeting, the workgroups will meet again on July 9, 2003, and the morning of July 10, 2003, in order to prepare presentations reporting on their work to the next plenary session scheduled for the afternoon of Thursday, July 10, 2003.

The four workgroups and their current membership are as follows:

The CBI Workgroup, including representatives from EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission

( CPSC), the Environmental Working Group ( EWG), the Fluoropolymer Manufacturers Group ( FMG), and the Telomer Research Program ( TRP). 3M and the Tuppers Plains Chester Water District requested to join this workgroup after the meeting concluded. The Monitoring Workgroup, including EPA, EWG, FMG, TRP, the Little Hocking Water Association,

environmental consultants Bennett & Williams, the WV Class Action Plaintiffs group, the National Center for Policy Research for Women and Families, and consulting toxicologist Rich Purdy. 3M and the Tuppers Plains Chester Water District requested to join this workgroup after the meeting concluded. The Fluoropolymer Workgroup, including EPA, CPSC, FMG, EWG, and Bennett & Williams. 3M

requested to join this workgroup after the meeting concluded. The Telomer Workgroup, including EPA, CPSC, TRP, EWG, and Rich Purdy. 3M requested to join

this workgroup after the meeting concluded.

Our tentative schedule for the four workgroups would have the Fluoropolymer Workgroup meeting in the morning and the Monitoring Workgroup meeting in the afternoon of Monday, June 23, and the CBI Workgroup meeting in the morning and the TRP Workgroup meeting in the afternoon of Tuesday, June 24, 2003. Each group participating on a technical workgroup is requested to provide to EPA the names, email addresses, and telephone numbers of the person( s) who will represent them on that specific workgroup. Because the business of the technical workgroups is to resolve the technical details that form the subject matter of the workgroup discussions, parties are requested to nominate workgroup members who will have appropriate expertise to address the issues on the table. Parties are encouraged to consolidate their representation to the extent possible, so that the number of participants around the table will be manageable and conducive to productive discussion. Parties can bring additional people to the meetings to observe and listen. To ensure that we will have sufficient space to accomodate all attendees, please inform us of all the people who will be coming.

EPA will arrange for teleconference facilities to allow workgroup members who are unable to travel to attend the meeting by telephone. We will need to know how many lines will be required as early as possible.

Please direct your responses and any comments concerning the scheduling or the workgroup meetings to Mary Dominiak at dominiak. mary@ epa. gov. EPA will be circulating draft workgroup agendas and additional preparatory materials shortly.

Sincerely,

Barbara Leczynski Chief, Existing Chemicals Branch U. S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA East, Room 4410 A, Mail Code 7405M 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Phone: 202 564 8164 Fax: 202 564 4775


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37962-37969]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16703]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001; FRL-9997-65-Region 2]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Ellenville Scrap Iron and
Metal Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 is
publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Ellenville Scrap
Iron and Metal Superfund Site, located in the Village of Ellenville,
Town of Wawarsing, Ulster County, New York, from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), is an appendix of the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct
final deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the
State of New York, through the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), because EPA has determined that
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other operation and
maintenance, monitoring, and five-year reviews, have been completed.
However, this deletion does not preclude future response actions under
Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective on September 24, 2019
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 4, 2019. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final deletion the Federal Register (FR) informing the public
that deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2002-0001, by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov. Follow online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from the web page. EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Damian J. Duda, Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New
York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 2, Superfund Records Center,
290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New Yok New York 10007-1866 (telephone: 212-
637-4308). Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation (Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.) and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2002-0001. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The
https://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment because of 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 https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the
hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
USEPA--Region II, Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor,
New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: Monday-Friday: 9
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Information on the Site is also available for viewing at the Site
Administrative Record repository located at: Ellenville Public Library,
40 Center Street, Village of Ellenville, New York 12428, Telephone:
(845) 647-5530, Hours: Monday-Thursday: 9:30 a.m. to 8 p.m., Friday:
9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., Saturday: 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Damian J. Duda, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway,
New York, New York 10007-1866, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 2 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Ellenville Scrap Iron and Metal Site (Site) from the NPL. The NPL
constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the NCP, which EPA
promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA, as amended. EPA
maintains the NPL as the list of releases that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. The
releases on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by
the Hazardous Substance Superfund. As described in Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remains eligible
for Fund-financed response action if future conditions at the sites
warrant such actions.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Site and demonstrates how it
meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete
the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the
public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

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

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to the deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of New York (NYS) prior to
developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of
Intent to Delete also published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section
of the Federal Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the State with 30 working days for review of
this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the State, through NYSDEC, has concurred on the
deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, the
Shawangunk Journal, and on the Midhudsonnews.com website. The newspaper
notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice
of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.
    (4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion
in the deletion docket and made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified
above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and will
continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent
to Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not, in any way, alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA's management of sites. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for further response

actions should future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

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

Site Background and History

    The Ellenville Site (CERCLIS ID NYSFN0204190) is a 24-acre parcel
where a former scrap iron and metal reclamation facility operated, and
the former facility is configured with an upper and lower plateau. The
Site is bound to the north by Cape Avenue, to the south and west by the
Beer Kill, and, to the east by residential properties. The Site also
includes select residential properties in the vicinity, located on Cape
Avenue and River Street in the Village of Ellenville, Town of
Wawarsing, Ulster County, New York. Approximately 10 acres of the Site
were used for a variety of scrap metal operations and battery
reclamation. Approximately 4000 people, relying on both public and
private drinking water supplies, live in the Village of Ellenville.
    At the time of its operations, the Site included an office
building, a truck scale, a hydraulic baling machine used for metal cans
and other small parts, abandoned automobiles and trucks, scrap metal
piles, railroad ties, storage of automobile batteries, emptied battery
casings, abandoned tires, and assorted brush piles. Deteriorated drums
were also found scattered throughout the Site property. An existing
landfill embankment, approximately 40 feet in height, runs in a
crescent along a northwesterly to southeasterly axis bisecting and
dividing the Site into two plateaus, the upper and the lower. The
landfill is composed of construction and demolition debris, including a
variety of finely shredded wastes, scrap brick, concrete, wood, and
other metal-type debris. A Cape Avenue residential property, directly
east of the entrance to the Site, was formerly part of the facility and
was used for the storage and disposal of heavy equipment, as well as
for the disposal of automobile battery casings.
    Lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), antimony, cadmium, and
hydrogen sulfide are the contaminants of potential health concern
associated with this Site. On-site soils and groundwater were
contaminated with lead. Soils at nearby residential properties were
contaminated with lead at levels that exceed EPA's threshold of a lead
hazard in soils. These soil samples revealed detections above both
background and noncancer health comparison values for antimony and
cadmium and above background but below noncancer health comparison
values for arsenic, barium, chromium, cobalt, copper, manganese,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver and zinc. Soils at the former
facility and nearby residential areas were contaminated with PCB
mixtures (Aroclors) above cancer and noncancer health comparison
values.
    The Site was proposed to the NPL on September 13, 2001, Federal
Register (66 FR 47612). The Site was included on the NPL on Thursday,
September 5, 2002, Federal Register (67 FR 56757). The effective date
was October 7, 2002.
    Area residents had complained about odors from the Site, stemming
from hydrogen sulfide and other compounds released from the
decomposition of the construction and demolition debris at the Site.
Four sediment samples from the nearby Beer Kill did not contain Site-
related contaminants at a level of concern. Groundwater from the seven
monitoring wells at the Site was contaminated with lead, cadmium,
manganese, nickel, iron and tetrachloroethene at or above drinking
water standards. However, adjacent residences are connected to the
public water supply, and any private wells down-gradient and across the
Beer Kill do not show any Site-related contaminants at concentrations
of concern. An up-gradient monitoring well did not contain any site-
related contamination.
    Completed off-site exposure pathways include contact with
contaminated soils and breathing contaminated ambient air. The
completed soil pathway is dermal contact and incidental ingestion of
metals (i.e., lead, antimony and cadmium) or PCB-contaminated soil from
five nearby residential yards. The completed air pathway is the
inhalation of odor-producing gases from the site in the past (e.g.,
hydrogen sulfide). Nearby residents were exposed in the past to Site-
related contaminants, especially lead and PCBs, in their yards. The
soil in the yards of three nearby properties showed levels of lead that
exceeded the US EPA's definition of a lead hazard in soils.
Additionally, the adjacent residence on Cape Avenue showed levels of
lead up to 230,000 mg/kg in the surface soil prior to EPA's removal
action. Based on these data and the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry's public health hazard consultation, the Site
represented a public health hazard.
    In June 2000, at the request of NYSDEC, EPA Region 2 and its
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team contractors conducted
a sampling event at the facility property and adjacent residential
properties as part of the EPA Superfund Preliminary Assessment/Site
Inspection process. Surface soil samples were collected throughout the
facility property and at several adjacent residential properties.
Sediments and surface water samples were also collected along the Beer
Kill, the adjacent stream to the Site. Samples were also collected from
a minor amount of ponded leachate emanating from a small area of the
landfill embankment at the Site. Analytical results from the June 2000
samples indicated contamination in surface soils, as well as in the
Beer Kill. Because the Beer Kill is used by recreational fishermen and
also discharges into two fisheries, a Hazard Ranking System evaluation
for the Site's inclusion on the NPL resulted in the Site being proposed
for and included on the NPL.
    As discussed above, battery reclamation and disposal activities
conducted at the Site on the adjacent Cape Avenue residential property
also resulted in lead contamination of its residential soils. Further
EPA sampling indicated that the lead contamination extended across the
entire adjacent property, as well as into the face of an embankment
that extended out from the rear of that property.
    In June 2004, EPA conducted a removal assessment at the adjacent
residential property. In November and December 2004, EPA implemented a
removal action and excavated 8200 square feet of contaminated soils
from the residential yard and from a portion of the surface of the
embankment. EPA disposed of all hazardous materials at off-site
permitted facilities. The excavated area of the residential yard was
covered and secured with geotextile fabric, backfilled, and replanted
with sod. EPA also installed silt fencing at the base of the embankment
to curtail any further erosion into the adjacent area.
    The June 2004 removal assessment also included sampling 20
deteriorating and leaking drums, as well as an aboveground tank. The
analytical results indicated that the drums contained various hazardous
substances, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (benzene and
ethylbenzene), semi-volatile compounds (SVOCs) (anthracene and pyrene)
and pesticides (lindane and DDT). These materials were contained and
disposed of at off-site permitted facilities.
    During the Summer and Fall of 2005, EPA performed further cleanup
actions at the Site in preparation for the continued RI field
activities, including the following: (1) Clearing, grading and

stabilizing the Site support area; (2) characterization and off-site
disposal of the various debris piles located throughout the Site
property, including tires, battery casings, wood pallets, and concrete
and construction debris; (3) characterization of the various remaining
scrap iron and steel found on the Site, as well as the abandoned
dumpsters, cars, trucks, baling, metal shearing and compactor units
located on the Site; (4) dismantling and preparing these materials and
equipment for recycling and/or for sale as scrap; (5) testing and
disposal of any localized contaminated soils associated with the
cleanup of the various debris piles and the metal-processing equipment
at approved, regulated facilities; (6) demolishing all extant Site
structures; and (7) the use of some of the crushed concrete materials
and shredded wooden pallets as grading materials for areas of the Site.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    During 2007-2008, the RI was performed to define the nature and
extent of contamination at the Site. During the RI, the affected media
that were investigated included surface and subsurface soils,
groundwater, surface water, sediments, landfill leachate, and soil gas.
EPA also conducted additional groundwater sampling in 2009 and 2010.
    In summary, a human health risk assessment was conducted, and, as a
result, EPA concluded that metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
pesticides and PCBs in soils and leachate found at the Site contributed
to unacceptable risks and hazards to on-site trespassers, construction/
utility workers, on-site recreational users, and on-site future
residents. There were also unacceptable hazards for off-property
residents from metals, especially lead. In addition, exposure to
groundwater for future on-site residents exceeded the acceptable risk
range for two metals, arsenic and chromium.
    A screening-level ecological risk assessment was conducted to
evaluate the potential for ecological effects from exposure to surface
soils, leachate, groundwater discharging to sediment and surface water,
and surface water and sediment from the Beer Kill. In this assessment,
EPA concluded that there was a potential for adverse effects to
terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates from direct exposure to
chemicals in soils and sediments at the Site.
    Off-site soils were sampled to determine background concentrations
in native soils not impacted by Site operations. In general, the Site
soils have been impacted by historic operations as evidenced by the
type and distribution of contaminants in the area of the landfill, in
the area of the former large debris piles at the base of the landfill
and along a drainage channel to the southeast of the landfill.
    Both surface and subsurface test pits (10 performed) and direct-
push borings (30 performed) soil samples show concentrations of SVOCs,
pesticides, PCBs and various metal concentrations above cleanup
objectives. In addition, VOC concentrations were detected in some fill
materials, as well as in subsurface soils of the landfill. The highest
results for PCBs, several PAHs and SVOCS that were detected during the
RI were on the lower plateau of the Site. Metals in surface and
subsurface soils, including zinc, lead, copper, chromium, cadmium,
mercury and nickel, exceeded soil cleanup objectives.
    Previous EPA residential investigations documented the presence of
high lead concentrations in deeper surface soils (> 12 inches) at the
Cape Avenue residential property portion of the Site where the
batteries had been stored and reclaimed. As part of EPA's June 2004
Removal Assessment, additional sampling was performed at this location
to delineate further the extent of lead contamination. During the RI,
surface and subsurface soil samples at depths of 0 to 6 inches and 6 to
24 inches were collected from locations on several residential
properties to the south and southeast of the former facility property.
PAHs, pesticides and lead, among other metals, were detected.
    Groundwater samples were collected during the RI. No general plume
of any group of constituents has been observed, but only localized low-
level impacts and somewhat random exceedances have been shown.
    During the FS, the Site was divided into six areas of concern
(AOCs) that facilitated the development and evaluation of remedial
alternatives, based on the nature and extent of contamination. The
contaminants identified in the six AOCs are described below:
     AOC 1--Landfill Area--VOCs, SVOCs, metals, PCBs and
pesticides were detected in the soils within this area at
concentrations greater than the NYS Restricted Use Soil Cleanup
Objectives for residential properties (RSCOs--Residential).
     AOC 2--Debris Pile Area--SVOCs, metals, PCBs and
pesticides were detected in the soils within the area at concentrations
greater than the RSCOs--Residential.
     AOC 3--Dumpster Staging Area--VOCs, metals and PCBs were
detected in the soils within this area at concentrations greater than
the RSCOs--Residential.
     AOC 4--Scattered Debris Area--Metals were detected in the
soils at one location within this area at concentrations greater than
the RSCOs--Residential.
     AOC 5--Battery Disposal Area--Metals and PCBs were
detected in the soils within this area at concentrations greater than
the RSCOs--Residential.
     AOC 6--Residential Properties Area--SVOCs and metals were
detected in the soils within the area at concentrations greater than
the RSCOs--Residential.

Selected Remedy

    The following Remedial Action Objectives were established for the
Site:
Groundwater
    [ballot] Prevent ingestion of groundwater with contaminant
concentrations greater than state water quality standards.
    [ballot] Restore groundwater contaminant concentrations to less
than state water quality standards.
    [ballot] Prevent discharge of groundwater with contaminant
concentrations greater than state water quality standards to adjacent
surface water, i.e., Beer Kill.
Soils
    [ballot] Prevent ingestion/direct contact to soils with contaminant
concentrations greater than state residential soil cleanup objectives.
    [ballot] Prevent inhalation of soil dust with contaminant
concentrations greater than state residential soil cleanup objectives.
    [ballot] Prevent migration of soils with contaminant concentrations
greater than state residential soil cleanup objectives.
    [ballot] Prevent or minimize impacts to groundwater and/or surface
water resulting from soil contamination with concentrations greater
than state residential soil cleanup objectives.
Solid Wastes
    [ballot] Prevent ingestion/direct contact with solid wastes with
contaminant concentrations greater than state residential soil cleanup
objectives.
    [ballot] Prevent migration of solid wastes with contaminant
concentrations greater than state residential soil cleanup objectives.
    [ballot] Prevent or minimize impacts to groundwater and/or surface
water resulting from solid wastes with concentrations greater than
state residential soil cleanup objectives.

Leachate
    [ballot] Prevent ingestion of leachate with contaminant
concentrations greater than state water quality standards.
    [ballot] Prevent migration of leachate with contaminant
concentrations greater than state water quality standards.
Air
    [ballot] Prevent exposure to or inhalation of volatilized
contaminants from the solid wastes.
    [ballot] Prevent migration of landfill gas generated by the
decomposition of solid waste.
    The major components of the selected remedy of the September 2010
Record of Decision are as follows:
    [ballot] Excavation of selected contaminated soils in six AOCs
(AOCs 1-6), which include residential properties adjacent to the former
facility property where contaminants in the surface soils exceed the
cleanup criteria;
    [ballot] Backfilling of the excavated areas with clean fill;
    [ballot] Consolidation of the excavated soils from AOCs 1-6 on the
upper and central portion of the Site;
    [ballot] Installation of a landfill cap system which meets the
substantive requirements of NYS Part 360 regulations over the existing
landfill and the consolidated soils, including long-term groundwater
monitoring; and,
    [ballot] Development of a Site Management Plan (SMP), in accordance
with NYS landfill closure requirements, that would include (1) long-
term groundwater monitoring, (2) engineering controls (ECs) with an
operation and maintenance (O&M) plan, which may include periodic
reviews and/or certifications and (3) a plan for implementing
institutional controls (ICs).
    EPA determined that an active groundwater remedy for the Site was
not required because of the following: (1) Limited groundwater
contamination (both inorganic and organic) underlies the Site, (2) the
isolated, low levels of contamination in the groundwater do not appear
to be mobile and show no threat of migration nor significant, area-wide
impact on Site groundwater, (3) there is no clearly defined inorganic
plume in the Site groundwater; (4) comprehensive groundwater monitoring
program would be implemented as part of the selected remedy; and (5)
the soil and groundwater data and the current hydrogeologic information
at the Site indicate that the fill material in the landfill proper is
located above the water table.

Response Actions

    Upon the selection of the remedy on September 30, 2010, EPA began
the preliminary design investigation (PDI) to fill any data gaps in the
soil data that were necessary to complete an effective remedial design
(RD) for the Site. The collection of soils data served both to
delineate further the nature and extent of contamination at the Site
and to provide sample results and post-excavation limits for
construction purposes. This eliminated the need for confirmatory
sampling post-excavation. The final PDI Report was issued in March
2011.
    The Remedial Action (RA) Work Plan was completed in May 2011. As
identified in the September 2010 ROD, RA activities included the
excavation of contaminated soils in the six AOCs, consolidation of non-
hazardous excavated soils within the final landfill footprint,
transport and off-site disposal of hazardous materials, installation of
a landfill cap system and restoration of all disturbed areas. The Site
also includes adjacent residential properties where contaminants in the
surface soils exceeded the NYS soil cleanup criteria.
    Based on the RI and previous investigation findings, the PDI was
conducted in October-November 2010 to fill gaps in soil data necessary
to complete an effective RD, as well as to provide confirmatory post-
excavation sample results required to complete the remedial
construction. A second phase of the PDI was conducted in February 2011
to collect samples from the residential areas after securing necessary
access. To minimize the total number of samples to be collected during
the PDI, pre-defined excavation areas of various depths were identified
to develop the conceptual sampling plan. The areas were developed based
on existing investigation results, Site history, aerial photographs,
and observations made during Site visits.
    During April and May 2011, pre-construction activities were
performed. The Site was cleared and grubbed with erosion and sediment
control measures implemented. All spoils from grubbing operations were
consolidated within the landfill cap area. The major construction
activities for this part of the overall project were excavation,
backfilling and materials handling, primarily of soils. Excavations
used conventional earthmoving equipment, including a hydraulic
excavator. The overall depths of excavation varied from a minimum of
about one foot up to a maximum depth of 11 feet.
    On May 6, 2011, formal construction activities began with the major
excavation work. Work progressed from the entrance to the southeast and
along the south and the western part of the lower plateau.
Concurrently, a separate field crew and equipment were mobilized and
were dedicated to the remediation of the residential properties. During
the remediation of the Site, several different waste streams were
generated and were either consolidated within the landfill cap area or
disposed of off-site.
    Backfill and compaction of excavation areas were performed.
Uncontaminated excavated soils were used for backfilling in excavated
areas to the fullest extent possible. Imported clean fill was also
necessary to complete the backfill of all excavated areas. This action
consisted of ``rolling-out'' the excavated materials and ``rolling-in''
the clean backfill materials.
    Concurrent with the consolidation of excavated soils (from both the
former facility property and the residential properties), the landfill
area was prepared for capping. Construction proceeded from the
northwest (near the staging area) to the southeast.
    Construction of the landfill subgrade consisted of the rough
grading of the consolidated materials excavated from the AOCs,
including tree stumps and acceptable demolition debris. To further
protect the subsequent geocomposite and geomembrane installations, a 6-
inch layer of select fill (free of any large, angular stones and finely
graded) was imported to the Site and placed over the rough graded
landfill subgrade. The landfill subgrade has a 3-to-1 maximum slope on
the side slopes and a five percent minimum slope on the top.
    An anchor trench around the perimeter of the landfill footprint was
excavated upon completion of the landfill subgrade that extends two
feet beyond the limits of the landfill waste and anchors the
geocomposite and geomembrane layers of the landfill cap. The excavated
trench soils were also incorporated under the landfill cap, and clean,
imported fill was utilized to backfill the anchor trench. Each area of
the subgrade layer was approved prior to further installation of each
subsequent layer in order to expedite the installation of the double-
sided gas vent geocomposite. Installation of this geocomposite layer
proceeded as more areas of the subgrade were fine-graded, approved and
released. The geocomposite drainage layer was accomplished in similar
fashion with approval of the high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
geomembrane in advance. The subsequent geocomposite layers were
installed in similar fashion, with each roll being unrolled down

slope, keeping the geocomposite in slight tension to minimize wrinkles
and folds.
    The HDPE geomembrane liner was placed over the top of the gas vent
geocomposite layer and has a nominal thickness of 60-mil (0.06 inches)
and the physical properties indicated in the project specifications.
The geomembrane extends down the front wall and across the bottom of
the anchor trench and is secured in place from uplift by wind by using
adequate ballast (i.e., sandbags). Geomembrane seams were installed
parallel to the line of the maximum slope. The ``as-built''
documentation indicates the repair/patch locations and the field seam
destruct sample testing locations. Prior to covering the geomembrane
with the geocomposite drainage layer, the geomembrane seams and non-
seam areas were visually inspected for defects, holes or damage as a
result of weather conditions or construction activities. The deployed
and seamed geomembrane was covered with the required geocomposite
drainage layer material.
    The barrier protection layer material is comprised of select fill,
in accordance with the design specifications, and consists of a
completed 24-inch compacted depth. This compacted depth was
accomplished by placing an initial 12-inch loose fill lift. This
initial lift served as protection for the geocomposite and geomembrane
layers from equipment utilized to place and compact the barrier
protection layer. Grading conformed to the Final Grading Plan minus six
inches for the subsequent topsoil layer installation.
    The final layer of the landfill cap consists of a six-inch
compacted lift of topsoil which was stabilized with erosion control
blankets and reinforced matting. Upon completion of the installation of
soil stabilizing measures, the entire landfill cap area was hydroseeded
with a seed mix to promote good vegetative growth.
    In summary, Site restoration activities included the installation
of topsoil, slope stabilization materials, hydroseeding and landfill
infrastructure items, including installation of the riprap channels and
the storm water basin, chain-link fencing, and the stabilization of the
east access road. Riprap channels were lined with a 12-ounce
geotextile. The construction of the riprap channels proceeded from the
high point of the channels, at the north end of the landfill, to the
low point of the channels at south end of the landfill, where they
discharged to the storm water basin. Gabion baskets were also installed
at certain locations in the drainage swales to prevent washouts. The
storm water basin was excavated and graded, as necessary, and did not
receive any topsoil cover or seed.
    Close attention was given to the remedial activities conducted on
the three residential properties, ensuring that these activities,
especially those adjacent to building structures, driveways, walkways
and residential utilities, were performed in a manner that closely
monitored the excavation, backfilling and compaction activities in
these areas. Additional excavation work was performed on the adjacent
Cape Avenue property in the area identified as the battery casing wall,
because the majority of the battery casings were found here. After
excavation and backfilling of the affected residential areas, including
the battery slope behind the adjacent Cape Avenue property, affected
areas topsoil was placed on the clean, backfill soils and then
hydroseeded with straw matting in place to ensure good grass growth.
    Restoration and expansion of an on-site wetland were also performed
with the installation of clay matting and a number of wetlands
plantings to replace wetlands affected by the installation of the
landfill cap. Seven additional monitoring wells were also installed in
both the bedrock and the overburden in order to conform to the NYS
requirements regarding the landfill cap installation.
    The final restoration of the permanent north and east access roads
ensured compliance with the grades and contours as shown on the as-
built drawings. Similar to the riprap swales, these 12-inch thick
gravel access roads were constructed atop a layer of 12-ounce
geotextile fabric. A six-foot high permanent chain link fence, with
posts and gates, was installed around the entire perimeter of the newly
constructed landfill cap area, including the north access road, the
staging area and the storm water basin.
    New tree seedlings and assorted bushes were also installed at
various locations on the adjacent Cape Avenue property as a replacement
for the trees removed during the clearing phase of the project.
    On August 28, 2011, Hurricane Irene affected the Site. Actions
associated with restoring areas affected by the hurricane included
restoration and stabilization of the hill (the battery-excavation area)
located at the aforesaid Cape Avenue residential property.
    On September 28, 2011, a final inspection of the Site was
conducted. The Site was deemed construction complete on September 30,
2011.

Verification of Cleanup Levels

    The remedy discussed herein has been implemented and constructed in
accordance with all EPA and NYS-approved RD documents, which include
the Design Analysis Report, construction drawings and technical
specifications. These documents also substantially comply with the
Parts 360 and 375 NYS regulations and NYSDEC Guidance Document 10.
    The RA activities at the Site were undertaken in a manner
consistent with the remedy and with the RD plans and specifications, as
modified by the as-built documentation. All applicable quality
assurance and quality control procedures and protocols were
incorporated into the RD. EPA analytical methods were used for all
monitoring samples during all remedial activities. All procedures and
protocols followed for groundwater, soil and air sample collection and
analysis are documented in the RD and RA reports, and the sample
analyses were performed at state-certified laboratories. EPA has
determined that all analytical results are accurate to the degree
needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA and that the data are
consistent with both the ROD and the RD plans and specifications, as
modified by the as-built documentation.
    Prior to the completion of the RA, groundwater monitoring data
revealed limited exceedances of NYS standards for antimony, arsenic,
chromium and lead in the overburden groundwater. High iron and
manganese concentrations were attributed to the naturally occurring
background conditions. Sodium levels were high in the upgradient wells,
indicating that it is also naturally occurring. VOCs that were sampled
were primarily at levels below detection limits.
    In general, data from groundwater sampling events conducted in 2012
and 2016 revealed that iron, manganese and sodium levels were detected
above the standards were consistent with naturally occurring
conditions. Levels of other metals (arsenic, chromium, lead and nickel)
were detected both above and below standards in one well. No SVOCs were
detected. Some VOCs were detected but shown to be below standards.
Overall, because of the low baseline contaminant concentrations in the
groundwater and the installation of the landfill cap, which prevents
infiltration to the groundwater, groundwater contaminant concentrations
at the Site are being monitored and are expected to continue to
decrease.

    Contaminated soils were excavated and removed from 1) an adjacent
residential property (Cape Avenue) to the former Site facility and 2)
two additional residential properties to the southeast along River
Street. Metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury and
zinc) were detected at these properties at concentrations in the soils
greater than the RSCOs--Residential. The cleanup goals were met.
    EPA's Preliminary Close-Out Report was signed on September 30,
2011, representing a successful construction completion at the Site.

Operation and Maintenance

    As of March 2015, NYSDEC assumed the O&M responsibilities at the
Site, in accordance with the Sire Management Plan (SMP) which specifies
the methods necessary to ensure compliance with all ICs and ECs for the
Site.
    NYSDEC currently performs semi-annual Site inspections to ensure
the remedial measures have not been compromised. These include
inspection of the landfill cap, the storm water basin, the perimeter
drainage swales, the monitoring wells, the gas vents, the constructed
wetland area, the access roads, the guard rails, and the fence lines.
    During the most recent assessment of current conditions, all
entrances to the Site were noted as secure, and the inner fence that
surrounds the main landfill area was intact but for a small, repairable
break in the northeast corner. The landfill cap was dry and the soil
stable. No animal presence was observed while on-site. The vegetation
on the landfill is green and has grown to an average height of less
than six inches. The landfill cap has been mowed. During the
inspections, NYSDEC confirmed that the vegetation is at an acceptable
height and roots not penetrating the landfill cap. The landfill gas
vents are in good condition. The drainage swales, located on the
perimeter of the Site, did not contain any water, and there are no
areas of active erosion or excessive vegetation growth. The storm water
outfall structure leading to the wetland was inspected and was
determined to be functioning as designed. The created wetland was also
inspected and found to have no issues. Inspection of the formerly-
forested wetland area on the lower plateau of the Cape Avenue
residential property showed that a few of the trees planted during the
RA may need replacement.
    All monitoring wells were secure, and concrete well pads were free
of large cracks and signs of deterioration. Outside the fenced area,
each monitoring well's condition was inspected; the wellhead was
screened with a photoionization detector (PID); and the total well
depth, depth to product (if any) and depth to water measurements were
recorded. No product or elevated PID readings were observed at any of
the monitoring wells inspected.
    Site access roads around the perimeter of the Site are in good
condition. The interior fence line is in good condition and the gates
are secure.
    A Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Environmental
Easements Survey Map was developed for the Site. This Declaration
includes the metes and bounds descriptions of the various property
parcels associated with the Site. The Map also identifies the fenced,
capped landfill area that is to be maintained under strict and specific
ECs.
    EPA issued two notices to successors-in-title to the two properties
impacted by the ECs implemented at the Site. Other than the existing
groundwater extraction restrictions though local ordinance, these
notices are the primary ICs at the Site. ICs are necessary to ensure
the protectiveness of the remedy.

Five-Year Review

    The purpose of a FYR is to evaluate the implementation and
performance of a remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will
continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The
methods, findings and conclusions of FYRs are documented in FYR
reports. In addition, FYR reports identify any issues that may have
been found during the review period and document recommendations of how
to address those issues.
    EPA prepared the first FYR for the Site, pursuant to CERCLA Section
121, consistent with the NCP (40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii)), and
considering EPA policy. The FYR was a statutory review because
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain at the Site
above levels that would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. The first FYR for the Site was signed in August 2017. In the
FYR report, EPA concluded that the remedy is functioning, as intended,
and is protective of human health and the environment. The FYR had no
issues or recommendations. FYRs will continue to be conducted at the
Site. The next five-year review will be conducted by August 2022.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities for the Site have been satisfied as
required pursuant to CERCLA Sections 113(k) and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k)
and 9617. As part of the remedy selection process, the public was
invited to comment on the proposed remedy. All other documents and
information that EPA relied on or considered in recommending this
deletion are available for the public to review at the information
repositories identified above and at EPA's website for the Site:
www.epa.gov/superfund/ellenville-scrap. The public is provided the
opportunity to comment on this proposed action.

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

    EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New York through NYSDEC,
has determined that all required and appropriate response actions have
been implemented. The criteria for deletion from the NPL, as set forth
at 40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(I)), are met. The implemented remedy achieves
the protection specified in the ROD for all pathways of exposure. All
selected remedial and removal action objectives, and associated cleanup
levels are consistent with agency policy and guidance. No further
Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the
environment.
    All of the cleanup requirements for the Site have been met, as
described in the 2011 Preliminary Close-Out Report and 2017 FYR report.
The State of New York, in a July 11, 2019 letter, concurred with the
proposed deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii)) specifies that EPA may delete a
site from the NPL if ``all appropriate Fund-financed response under
CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by
responsible parties is appropriate.''

V. Deletion Action

    EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New York through NYSDEC,
has determined that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been
completed and that no further response actions, under CERCLA, other
O&M, monitoring, and FYRs, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is
deleting the Site from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are
available in the deletion docket at https://www.regulations.gov and at
the Site information repositories.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking this action without prior publication. This
action will be effective on September 24, 2019 unless EPA receives
adverse comments by September 4, 2019. If adverse comments

are received within the 30-day public comment period of this action,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of
deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and the deletion
will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and
continue with the deletion process, as appropriate, on the basis of the
notice of intent to delete and the comments received. If there is no
withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion, there will be no
additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Dated: July 24, 2019.
Peter D. Lopez,
Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 2.

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

PART 300--[AMENDED]

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

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

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry
for ``NY,'' ``Ellenville Scrap Iron and Metal'', ``Ellenville''.

[FR Doc. 2019-16703 Filed 8-2-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 7, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9502-9503]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02457]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-1026]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Perquimans River, Hertford, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the US17 (Perquimans) Bridge across the
Perquimans River, mile 12.0, at Hertford, NC. This deviation is
necessary to perform a bridge deck replacement project. This deviation
allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective without actual notice from February
7, 2017 through 6 p.m. on March 17, 2017. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from January 25, 2017 at 3:25
p.m., until February 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-1026] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-
6222, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The North Carolina Department of
Transportation, that owns and operates the US17 (Perquimans) Bridge
across the Perquimans River, mile 12.0, at Herford, NC, has requested a
temporary deviation from the current operating regulations to perform a
bridge deck replacement project. The bridge will be unable to balance
during the bridge deck replacement project. As balance is required for
safe operation of the moveable span, the bridge will not be capable of
safe operation for the duration of the bridge deck replacement project.
The bridge is a bascule draw bridge and has a vertical clearance in the
closed position of 7 feet above mean high water.
    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.835. Under
this temporary deviation, the bridge will remain in the closed-to-
navigation position from 8 a.m. on January 25, 2017, to 6 p.m. on March
17, 2017.
    The Perquimans River is used by a variety of vessels including
small public vessels, small commercial vessels, and recreational
vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions
with waterway users.
    Vessels able to safely pass through the bridge in the closed
position may do so, after receiving confirmation from the bridge tender
that it is safe to transit through the bridge. The bridge will not be
able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route
for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the
waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the
change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators
can arrange their transit to minimize any impact caused by the
temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 25, 2017.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-02457 Filed 2-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P