[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61520-61523]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24512]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0557; Product Identifier 2019-NE-17-AD; Amendment
39-19775; AD 2019-21-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aviointeriors S.p.A. Centaurus
Passenger Seats

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Aviointeriors S.p.A. (Aviointeriors) Centaurus passenger seats
with a specific life vest pouch assembly installed. This AD was
prompted by reports of life vest pouches that were installed
incorrectly on certain seats. This AD requires inspection of the life
vest pouch assembly and, depending on the results of the inspection,
replacement of the life vest pouch assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 18, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 18,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Aviointeriors S.p.A., Customer Support, Via Appia Km. 66,4;
04013 Latina, Italy; phone: +39 0773 6891; fax: +39 0773 631546; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http://www.aviointeriors.it. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2019-0557.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0557; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dorie Resnik, Aerospace Engineer,
Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Aviointeriors
S.p.A. (Aviointeriors) Centaurus passenger seats with a specific life
vest pouch assembly installed. The NPRM published in the Federal
Register on August 15, 2019 (84 FR 41664). The NPRM was prompted by
reports of life vest pouches that were installed incorrectly on certain
seats. The NPRM proposed to require inspection of the life vest pouch
assembly and, depending on the results of the inspection, replacement
of the life vest pouch assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.
    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued EASA AD No. 2018-0264R1, dated April 4, 2019 (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''), to address the unsafe condition on these
products. The MCAI states:

    Incorrect installation of the affected pouch was found on
certain affected seats. Subsequent investigation determined that
those pouches have been (re)installed in service. This condition, if
not detected and corrected, could prevent extraction of the life
vest from the pouch, leading to evacuation of the aeroplane without
a life vest, possibly resulting in injury to passengers.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Aviointeriors issued
the SB to provide inspection instructions and the modification SB to
provide instructions to modify the affected seats. Aviointeriors
also revised the Component Maintenance Manuals (CMM) to include
updated instructions for installing an affected pouch.
    For the reason described above, EASA issued AD 2018-0264,
requiring inspection of the affected seats and, depending on
findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was determined that affected
seats may have received an additional P/N related to the aircraft
modification addressing the installation of the seats. This [EASA]
AD is revised to clarify the Applicability by inserting Note 1 into
Appendix 1 of this [EASA] AD.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0557.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule as proposed.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Aviointeriors Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No.
16/18, Rev. 1, dated October 11, 2018, and Aviointeriors Optional
Service Bulletin (OSB) No. 18/18, Rev. 2, dated March 11, 2019. The MSB
describes procedures for inspection and horizontal installation of the
life vest pouch assembly. The OSB describes procedures for an
alternative (vertical) inspection and installation of the life vest
pouch assembly. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects an unknown number of
passenger seats installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 777-200 and
777-300 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspect life vest pouch assembly..............  0.2 work-hours x $85 per hour =               $0             $17
                                                 $17.
Replace life vest pouch assembly..............  0.1 work-hours x $85 per hour =              172          180.50
                                                 $8.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-21-09 Aviointeriors S.p.A.: Amendment 39-19775; Docket No. FAA-
2019-0557; Product Identifier 2019-NE-17-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 18, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to Aviointeriors S.p.A. (Aviointeriors)
Centaurus Economy Class 13E, 13H, and 13K passenger seats with a
seat part number (P/N) listed in Figure 1 to paragraph (c)(1) of
this AD, with life vest pouch, P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>04, installed.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13NO19.001

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
    (2) These appliances are installed on, but not limited to,
Boeing 777-200 and 777-300 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2561, Life Jacket.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of life vest pouches installed
incorrectly on certain seats. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent
the life vest from failing to extract from the pouch during an
emergency. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
having to evacuate the airplane without a life vest, possibly
resulting in injury or death to passengers.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within three months or 600 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the affected seat
life vest pouch assembly using Paragraph 2, Life Vest Inspection, of
Aviointeriors Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 16/18, Rev. 1,
dated October 11, 2018, or Paragraph 2, Life Vest Pouches
Inspection, Aviointeriors Optional SB (OSB) No. 18/18, Rev. 2, dated
March 11, 2019.
    (2) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD, a life vest pouch velcro strip is found damaged or worn,
before further flight, remove the life vest pouch from service and
replace it with a part eligible for installation using Paragraphs 3
through 5, inclusive, of Aviointeriors MSB No. 16/18, Rev. 1, dated
October 11, 2018, or Aviointeriors OSB No. 18/18, Rev. 2, dated
March 11, 2019.
    (3) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD, a life vest pouch installation is not found acceptable, as
defined in Paragraph 2 of Aviointeriors MSB No. 16/18, Rev. 1, dated
October 11, 2018, or Aviointeriors OSB No. 18/18, Rev. 2, dated
March 11, 2019, before further flight, remove the life vest pouch
from service and replace it with a part eligible for installation
using Paragraphs 3 through 5, inclusive, of Aviointeriors MSB No.
16/18, Rev. 1, dated October 11, 2018, or Aviointeriors OSB No. 18/
18, Rev. 2, dated March 11, 2019.

(h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install an
Aviointeriors Centaurus Economy Class passenger seat with a P/N
identified in paragraph (c) of this AD unless the affected seat life
vest pouch assembly has been inspected in accordance with paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD, and depending on the finding, replaced with a
part eligible for installation.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Dorie Resnik,
Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2018-0264R1, dated April 4, 2019, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2019-0557.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Aviointeriors Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 16/18, Rev. 1,
dated October 11, 2018, and
    (ii) Aviointeriors Optional Service Bulletin No. 18/18, Rev. 2,
dated March 11, 2019.
    (3) For Aviointeriors service information identified in this AD,
contact Aviointeriors S.p.A., Customer Support, Via Appia Km. 66,4;
04013 Latina, Italy; phone: +39 0773 6891; fax: +39 0773 631546;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http://www.aviointeriors.it.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine &
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 24, 2019.
Karen M. Grant,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-24512 Filed 11-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 203 (Friday, October 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64237]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25796]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL-9743-4]

Notice of Approval of Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Permit Issued to the City of Palmdale for the Palmdale
Hybrid Power Project

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final action.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces that Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region 9 has issued a final permit decision issuing a Clean Air
Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for the City
of Palmdale (City) for the construction of the Palmdale Hybrid Power
Project (PHPP).

DATES: EPA Region 9 issued a final PSD permit decision for the PHPP on
September 25, 2012. The permit also became effective on that date.
Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
7607(b)(1), judicial review of this final permit decision, to the
extent it is available, may be sought by filing a petition for review
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within 60
days of October 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents relevant to the above-referenced permit are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. To arrange for viewing
of these documents, call Lisa Beckham at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Beckham, Permits Office (Air-3),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Anyone who wishes to review the EPA Environmental
Appeals Board (EAB) decision described below or documents in the EAB's
electronic docket for its decision can obtain them at http://www.epa.gov/eab/. A copy of the PSD permit is also available at http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/permit/r9-permits-issued.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA Region 9 issued a final permit to the
City authorizing the construction and operation of the PHPP, PSD Permit
No. SE 09-01. The City's permit was initially issued by EPA Region 9 on
October 18, 2011.
    The EPA's EAB received one petition for review of the PHPP permit
from Mr. Rob Simpson. On September 17, 2012, the EAB denied review of
Mr. Simpson's petition. See In re City of Palmdale, PSD Appeal No. 11-
07 (EAB, Sept. 17, 2012) (Order Denying Review). Following the EAB's
action, pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(1), EPA Region 9 issued a final
permit decision on September 25, 2012. All conditions of the PHPP PSD
permit, as initially issued by EPA Region 9 on October 18, 2011, are
final and effective as of September 25, 2012.

    Dated: September 27, 2012.
Elizabeth Adams,
Acting Director, Air Division, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-25796 Filed 10-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71186]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29291]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Union Pacific Railroad Company

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2004-17565]

    The Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) seeks an amendment to an
existing waiver of compliance from certain provisions of Title 49 CFR
parts 231 and 232, concerning the operation of RoadRailer[supreg] and
RailRunner[supreg] equipment on their railroad. Subject to certain
conditions, the existing waiver in this docket authorizes UPRR to
operate RoadRailer equipmen on their railroad. UPRR now seeks relief
from certain provisions of the Railroad Safety Appliance Standards in
Title 49 CFR part 231, that stipulate the number, location, and
dimensions for handholds, ladders, sill steps, uncoupling levers, and
handbrakes to operate RailRunner equipment commingled with RoadRailer
equipment. UPRR also seeks relief from Title 49 CFR 231.31, which sets
the standard height for drawbars. UPRR states that this relief is
necessary to allow them to operate and commingle the RoadRailer[supreg]
and RailRunner[supreg] equipment on dedicated trains operating from
Chicago, Illinois, to Minneapolis, Minnesota.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2004-17565) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Page 19477) or at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 15, 2010.
Michael Logue,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Compliance and Program
Implementation.
[FR Doc. 2010-29291 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38031-38033]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16620]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2018-0614]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Shark River, Neptune, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of Shark River off Neptune, NJ, from 8:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m.
on August 4, 2018, during the Neptune National Night Out Fireworks
Display. The safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
participant vessels, spectators, and the boating public during the
event. This regulation prohibits persons and non-participant vessels
from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within
the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP)
Delaware Bay or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. through 9:30 p.m. on
August 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2018-0614 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST1 Edmund Ofalt, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay,
Waterways Management Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFRFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHSFR Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register

NPRMFR Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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 and contrary to
the public interest to do so. There is insufficient time to allow for a
reasonable comment period prior to the date of the event. The rule must
be in force by August 4, 2018, to serve its purpose of ensuring the
safety of spectators and the general public from hazards associated
with the fireworks display. Hazards include accidental discharge of
fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other
debris.
    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. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to mitigate the potential safety
hazards associated with a fireworks display in this location.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Delaware Bay (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the fireworks display on August 4,
2018, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of
the fireworks barge, which will be anchored in approximate position
40[deg]11' 32.08'' N, 074[deg]01' 53.06'' W. This rule is needed to
protect persons, vessels and the public within the safety zone during
the fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 8:30 p.m.
through 9:30 p.m. on August 4, 2018, on the waters of Shark River off
Neptune, NJ, during a fireworks display from a barge. The event is
scheduled to take place at approximately 8:45 p.m. on August 4, 2018.
The safety zone will extend 100 yards around the barge, which will be
anchored at approximate position 40[deg]11' 32.08'' N,
074[deg]01'53.06'' W. No person or vessel will be permitted to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated
representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within the safety zone is granted by the COTP Delaware Bay or
a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP Delaware
Bay or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide public
notice of the safety zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and by on-
scene actual notice from designated representatives.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    The rule is not a significant regulatory action for the following
reasons: (1) Although persons and vessels may not enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without
authorization from the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated
representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the
enforcement period; (2) persons and vessels will still be able to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area
if authorized by the COTP Delaware Bay or a designated representative;
and (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the safety
zone to the local maritime community by Broadcast Notice to Mariners,
or by on-scene actual notice from designated representatives.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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
section.
    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.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    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 is
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    Also, 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. 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.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (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 safety zone that will prohibit persons and vessels from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within a limited area on
the navigable water in the Shark River, for approximately one hour.
This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

G. 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

.0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0614 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0614  Safety Zone; Fireworks, Shark River, Neptune, NJ.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Shark River off of Neptune, NJ, within 100 yards of the barge
anchored in position 40[deg]11'32.08'' N, 074[deg]01'53.06'' W. All
coordinates are based on Datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard petty
officer, warrant or commissioned officer on board a Coast Guard vessel
or on board a federal, state, or local law enforcement vessel assisting
the Captain of the Port (COTP), Delaware Bay in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter or remain in the zone, contact the
COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM channel 16 or 215-271-
4807. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (3) This section applies to all vessels except those engaged in law
enforcement, aids to navigation servicing, and emergency response
operations.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local
agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This zone will be enforced from 8:30 p.m.
through 9:30 p.m. on August 4, 2018.

    Dated: July 30, 2018.
S.E. Anderson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2018-16620 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 66)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17068-17071]
[DOCID:fr06ap07-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0175; FRL-8119-8]

Pesticides; Food Packaging Treated with a Pesticide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would except from the definitions of
``pesticide chemical'' and ``pesticide chemical residue'' under FFDCA
section 201(q), food packaging (e.g. paper and paperboard, coatings,
adhesives, and polymers) that is treated with a pesticide as defined in
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section
2(u). As a result, such ingredients in food packaging treated with a
pesticide would be exempt from regulation under FFDCA section 408 as
pesticide chemical residues. Further, a food that bears or contains
such ingredients would not be not subject to enforcement by the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) under section 402(a)(2) (B) of the FFDCA
since the ingredients would no longer be pesticide chemical residues.
Instead, such ingredients would be subject to regulation by the FDA as
food additives under FFDCA section 409. FDA generally regulates such
food additives in food packaging as food contact substances under
FFDCA, section 409(h). This proposed rule would expand the scope of the
provision in 40 CFR 180.4 which currently applies only to food
packaging impregnated with an insect repellent - one type of pesticide.
This proposed rule, as with the rule it would amend, only applies to
the food packaging materials themselves; it would not otherwise limit
EPA's FFDCA jurisdiction over pesticides or limit FDA's jurisdiction
over substances subject to FDA regulation as food additives. EPA, in
consultation with FDA, and FDA believe this rule would eliminate the
duplicative FFDCA jurisdiction and economize federal government
resources while continuing to protect human health and the environment.
Even after this rule is finalized, under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA would continue to regulate
the food packaging as an inert ingredient of the pesticide product and
regulate the pesticide active ingredient in the treated food packaging
under both FIFRA and the FFDCA. The text of this proposed rule is
identical to a direct final rule EPA issued on December 6, 2006. EPA
received several comments opposing that direct final rule and therefore
withdrew the rule on January 25, 2007, consistent with EPA policy. EPA
is now issuing the rule as a proposal for public comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0175, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0175. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mari L. Duggard, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a
manufacturer or wholesaler of sanitary food packaging products or are a
pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but
are not limited to:
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
     Food packaging manufacturers (NAICS code 32222).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in 40 CFR Sec.  180.4.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0175. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket
Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA has received applications for the registration of pesticides
under FIFRA that, as proposed, will be applied to food packaging
materials. These pesticides are generally intended to function as
alternatives to more costly and more toxic applications of insecticides
in food storage and retail establishments. The regulatory framework for
this use of pesticides raises a number of complex jurisdictional issues
for EPA and FDA.\1\ Because the treated packaging materials will be
sold to food distributors for the purpose of controlling pest
infestations, as well as for packaging food, the

pesticide-treated food packaging materials will be subject to the
pesticide product registration requirements of section 3 of FIFRA.
Under FIFRA, the components of pesticides are either active ingredients
or inert ingredients. Active ingredients are those which, among other
things, will ``prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate any pest.'' (FIFRA
section 2(a)) Inert ingredients are ingredients ``which [are] not
active.'' (FIFRA section 2(m)). Thus, the components of food packaging
(paperboards, coatings, etc.) become inert ingredients of a pesticide
product under FIFRA whenever the food packaging is treated with a
pesticide active ingredient and is distributed or sold with the purpose
of controlling pests.\2\ Such inert ingredients are not used for a
pesticidal purpose in the production, storage, processing, or
transportation of food. However, as inert ingredients, these components
of food packaging are also subject to regulation as ``pesticide
chemical residues'' under FFDCA section 408.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This proposed rule would not include within its scope
substances which may be regulated as pesticides under FIFRA that are
used to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate microorganisms when such
substances are included for such use in or are applied for such use
on food packaging (without regard to whether the substances are
intended to have an ongoing effect on any portion of the packaging)
(see FFDCA section 201(q)(1)(B)(ii) which excludes such substances
from the definition of ``pesticide chemical''). Because such
substances are already excluded from the definition of pesticide
chemical residue, it is unnecessary to address these substances in
this proposed rule.
    \2\ It is important to understand that this proposed rule would
only apply to a very small subset of food packaging materials:
pesticide-treated food packaging that is distributed or sold with
the purpose of controlling pests. Food packaging that is not
distributed or sold to control pests is not a pesticide and is not
subject to this rule. For example, packaged products that are simply
treated with pesticides by food distributors, retailers or
homeowners solely to control pests on site do not themselves become
pesticides simply as a result of such applications. Rather, the
product itself must be distributed with the purpose of providing
pest control to become a pesticide. The treated packaging materials
addressed in this proposed rule are those that are sold for the
express purpose of providing ongoing protection from pests that may
contaminate the products made with the treated packaging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 408 of the FFDCA, any pesticide chemical residue in
or on food is deemed unsafe, unless EPA has established a tolerance or
tolerance exemption that covers the pesticide chemical residue. This is
true even though FDA may have previously issued regulations under
section 409 of FFDCA permitting the use of these materials in food
packaging that has not been treated with a pesticide. As a result, the
same food packaging materials would be subject to regulation under
FFDCA by both Agencies. EPA is proposing today to give FDA sole
jurisdiction under section 409 FFDCA over the packaging components of
food packaging materials that have been treated with a pesticide by
excepting these materials from the definition of ``pesticide chemical''
and ``pesticide chemical residue.'' Given FDA's expertise and
experience in regulating the components of food packaging, EPA and FDA
believe this rule will eliminate the duplicative FFDCA jurisdiction and
economize Federal government resources while continuing to protect
human health and the environment without additional regulatory
oversight by EPA.
    In 1998, EPA consciously limited the exception at 40 CFR 180.4 to
food packaging materials impregnated with an insect repellent, since at
the time of promulgation EPA had only received an application for a
pesticide product containing an insect repellent. EPA has now received
applications for other treated food packaging products that contain
active ingredients that are not insect repellents and will not be
applied through impregnation of the materials. EPA and FDA believe it
is appropriate to extend the 1998 rule to give FDA sole jurisdiction
under the FFDCA over the inert ingredients in such food packaging
products without regard to the application technique and mode of action
of the active ingredients in such products. Again, this proposed rule
would not affect EPA's jurisdiction under section 408 over ingredients
other than the packaging materials in such products (including the
pesticide active ingredient), nor does it affect EPA's jurisdiction
under FIFRA to regulate such products.
    On December 6, 2006, EPA published a direct final rule (71 FR
70667) to expand the coverage of 40 CFR 180.4 as discussed in the
preceding paragraph. Because EPA received several comments opposing
promulgation of that rule, EPA withdrew the rule on January 25, 2007
and is today issuing this proposal for public comment prior to
developing any final rule. The regulatory text of the withdrawn direct
final rule and today's proposal are identical: both provide that the
components of food packaging material (e.g. paper and paperboard,
coatings, adhesives, and polymers) that have been treated with a
pesticide are excepted from the definition of pesticide chemical and
pesticide chemical residue under section 201(q) of the FFDCA. Again, as
explained in detail above, this proposal, like the direct final rule it
replaces, only excepts packaging material from EPA regulation under the
FFDCA - these materials will continue to be regulated by the FDA under
section 409. Further, the rule does not modify the existing regulatory
regime under the FFDCA for pesticidally active ingredients in food
packaging nor does it affect EPA regulation of pesticide products under
FIFRA. However, the comments EPA received on the direct final rule all
appeared to oppose the rule principally because the commenters were
concerned about the inclusion of pesticides in food packaging and did
not believe EPA should either be permitting or relinquishing any
authority to regulate that activity. It appears, therefore, that the
commenters either misunderstood the nature of the amendment to Sec.
180.4 or chose to submit comments to EPA on matters not specifically
addressed by the direct final rule - or by today's proposed rule. In
any case, nothing in the withdrawn direct final rule or in today's
proposal relieves EPA of the obligation to regulate pesticides in food
packaging, nor does today's action serve to approve the use of any
pesticides in food packaging. Accordingly, these comments are not
relevant to the action EPA is today proposing to take.
    EPA previously provided for a 30-day comment on the withdrawn
direct final rule. As noted, the text of this proposed rule is
identical to the withdrawn direct final rule. Because interested
persons have already had an opportunity to comment on this matter
through the direct final rule, EPA is providing only for an additional
15-day comment period on this proposed rule.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 201(q)(3) of FFDCA, as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA), allows the Administrator, under specified
conditions, to except certain substances from the definition of
``pesticide chemical'' or ``pesticide chemical residue'' if--

    (A) its occurrence as a residue on or in a raw agricultural
commodity or processed food is attributable primarily to natural
causes or human activities not involving the use of any substance
for a pesticidal purpose in the production, storage, processing, or
transportation of any raw agricultural commodity or processed food;
and
    (B) the Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary,
determines that the substance more appropriately should be regulated
under one or more provisions of this Act other than sections
402(a)(2)(B) and 408.

    With today's proposal, EPA would except from the definition of
``pesticide chemical'' substances that are inert ingredients in food
packaging treated with a pesticide, when such ingredients are the
components of the food packaging (e.g. paper and paperboard, coatings,
adhesives and polymers).
    As previously explained, this proposed rule would not affect EPA's
regulation of such substances as inert ingredients under FIFRA. EPA
would continue to exercise jurisdiction under FIFRA over these
substances when they are used as inert ingredients in food packaging
that is intended to produce a pesticidal effect. The materials that

make up food packaging treated with a pesticide may serve one of two
purposes: (1) To control pests, or (2) to be one of the materials that
make up the container for food. As a result of this proposed rule, EPA
would continue to regulate the materials that control pests and FDA
will regulate the substances that make up the food packaging material.
Consistent with EPA's pesticide registration regulations, EPA will not
issue a registration under FIFRA for pesticide products containing food
packaging inert ingredients if the presence of these ingredients in or
on food is not authorized or permitted by FFDCA and the implementing
regulations.
    EPA, in consultation with FDA, believes that section 201(q)(3) is
applicable to inert ingredients in pesticide treated food packaging
materials that are the components of the food packaging (paperboard,
coatings, etc). When such inert ingredients are the components of the
food packaging itself, EPA believes the occurrence of these substances
as residues in or on food would be appropriately excepted from the
definition of ``pesticide chemical'' or ``pesticide chemical residue''
because such substances are not attributable primarily to the use of
the substances for a pesticidal purpose in the production, storage,
processing or transportation of food. Rather, the presence of such
substances as residues in food is primarily attributable to their use
for purposes of packaging food. For this reason, and because of FDA's
considerable experience in regulating such substances found in food
packaging, EPA and FDA believe it is appropriate for FDA to regulate
these inert ingredients under section 409 of FFDCA.
    As noted, this proposed regulation would except from the definition
of ``pesticide chemical'' and ``pesticide chemical residue'' any inert
ingredient that is a component of food packaging material treated with
a pesticide. EPA, in consultation with FDA, believes the identity of
the pesticide in or on the packaging material is not relevant to a
determination under section 201(q)(3) regarding whether it is
appropriate to except an inert ingredient from the definition of
``pesticide chemical'' or ``pesticide chemical residue.'' As noted
above, that determination turns only on whether: (1) the occurrence of
the residues of the substance in or on food is attributable primarily
to the use of substances for a pesticidal purpose in the production,
storage, processing or transportation of food; and (2) whether it is
more appropriate to regulate such substances under another provision of
FFDCA other than sections 402(a)(2)(B) and 408. Thus, EPA has
determined that inert ingredients that are the components of the food
packaging material in pesticide treated food packaging are more
appropriately regulated by FDA under FFDCA. This proposed rule would
therefore amend 40 CFR 180.4 to extend the exception contained therein
to any food packaging materials treated with a pesticide.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As an exception, this action does not impose any regulatory
obligations. Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning
and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), it has been determined that
this proposed rule is not ``significant'' and is not subject to OMB
review. This proposed rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et. Seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). This proposed rule has no
federalism or tribal implications, because it will not have substantial
direct effects on States or Indian tribes, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and the States or Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Orders 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999) and 13175 entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Nor does
this rule raise issues that require special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), or require OMB review in
accordance with Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This proposed rule is also not subject to Executive Order
13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
because this action is not expected to affect energy supply,
distribution, or use. In addition, this action does not involve any
standards that would require Agency consideration pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
(Public Law 104-113)
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Agency hereby certifies that this proposed regulatory action will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, because this regulatory action is an exemption and imposes no
regulatory obligations. EPA will provide this information to the Small
Business Administration's office of Advocacy upon request.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 26, 2007.
Janet L. Andersen,
 Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), and 371.

    2. Section 180.4 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows.

Sec.  180.4  Exceptions.

* * * * *
    (a) Inert ingredients in food packaging treated with a pesticide,
when such inert ingredients are the components of the food packaging
material (e.g. paper and paperboard, coatings, adhesives, and
polymers).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-6349 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34508-34513]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15622]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-9981-00--Region 1]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Union Chemical Co., Inc.
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Union Chemical Co., Inc. Superfund
Site (Site) located in South Hope, Maine, from the National Priorities
List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The
NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of
Maine, through the Department of Environmental Protection (MEDEP), have
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other
than operation and maintenance, monitoring and Five-Year Reviews, have
been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: [email protected] or [email protected].
     Mail:

Terrence Connelly, U.S. EPA, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code
OSSR 07-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912
ZaNetta Purnell, U.S. EPA, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code
OSSR 01-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912

    Hand delivery: U.S. EPA, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
MA. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1989-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov 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 http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
    U.S. EPA Region 1, Superfund Records Center, 5 Post Office Square,
Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday- Friday: 9:00
a.m.-5:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday--Closed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terrence Connelly, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Mail Code OSSR
07-1, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109-3912,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 1 announces its intent to delete the Union Chemical Co.,
Inc Superfund Site (Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA
maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites
on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the
Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible
for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such
actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for
thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
    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.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

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

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of
Intent to Delete.
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this
notice prior to publication of it today
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate;
    (4) The State of Maine, through its Department of Environmental
Protection (MEDEP), has concurred with deletion of the Site from the
NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major
local newspaper, the Bangor Daily News. The newspaper notice announces
the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to
Delete the Site from the NPL.
    (6) The 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 repository
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on
this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines
it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator
will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public
notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary,
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the
Site information repository listed above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

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

Site Background and History

    The Union Chemical Co., Inc. Superfund Site, CERCLIS ID:
MED042143883, is located in South Hope, Knox County, Maine, on the
south side of Route 17 in a rural residential area. The Site is bounded
by Quiggle Brook, a southerly flowing stream, on the east and
southeast, by undeveloped forested land to the south and southwest and
a vacant residential lot to the west.
    Union Chemical Company began operations in 1967, as a paint
stripping and solvent manufacturing business. Initially, patented
solvents were manufactured and utilized on the premises, and
distributed nationally. The Company expanded operations to include the
recycling of used stripping compounds and solvents from other
businesses. Operations were further expanded in 1982 to include a full-
scale, fluidized-bed incinerator to treat waste solvents and other
compounds. Operations ceased in 1985.
    The risk assessment conducted during EPA's Remedial Investigation
indicated that there would be unacceptable carcinogenic and non-
carcinogenic risks from future ingestion of the groundwater at the Site
due to concentrations of contaminants.
    On June 24, 1988, EPA proposed the Site for listing on the NPL and
on October 4, 1989, listing on the NPL was finalized. The Federal
Register citations for these notices are FR Vol. 53, No. 122, 23978-
23986 and FR Vol. 54, No. 191, 41015-41025, respectively.
    MEDEP closed the hazardous waste treatment operations at the Site
in June 1984. At that time approximately 2,000-2,500 55-gallon drums
and 30 liquid storage tanks were present at the Site. These drums,
their contents, and the contents of the storage tanks were removed by
EPA and MEDEP by the end of November 1984.
    At present, contamination remains in the groundwater at the Site
that EPA, with consent from MEDEP, determined in 2013 to be technically
impracticable to restore. In 2017, a Declaration of Environmental
Covenant, which among other things, prohibits the use of groundwater,
was recorded in the chain of title for the properties comprising the
Site. This deed restriction limits how the Site can be redeveloped.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The scope of the Remedial Investigation was comprehensive,
evaluating the nature and extent of contamination in the facility's
buildings and underlying soils, unsaturated and saturated soils on the
rest of the property, in groundwater in the overburden soils and in
bedrock, and in surface water. Additionally, the Remedial Investigation
collected soil samples from nearby properties to identify potential
airborne contamination which may have occurred as a result of Union
Chemical

Company's past operation of the Site's hazardous waste incinerator.
    The Feasibility Study screened seven on-site soil remedial
alternatives, six alternatives for groundwater and surface water, five
alternatives for the facilities, and two alternatives for off-site
soils. All but one on-site soil alternative was retained for detailed
analysis. The on-site soil alternatives analyzed in detail included No-
Action; Limited Action; Site Capping; Soil Excavation and Low-
Temperature Thermal Aeration Treatment; In-Situ Soil Aeration; and Soil
Excavation and High-Temperature Thermal Treatment. The groundwater and
surface water alternatives analyzed in detail included No-Action;
Limited Action; Groundwater Extraction with On-Site Treatment and
Discharge to Quiggle Brook; Vacuum-Enhanced Groundwater Extraction with
On-Site Treatment and Discharge to Quiggle Brook; Groundwater
Extraction with On-Site Treatment and Reinjection; and Vacuum-Enhanced
Groundwater Extraction with On-Site Treatment and Reinjection. The five
alternatives for the facilities included No-Action; Limited Action;
Facilities Decontamination only; Facilities Decontamination and
Demolition; and Facilities Demolition and Disposal without
Decontamination. The two off-site soil alternatives were No Action and
Limited Action.

Selected Remedy

    In the 1990 Record of Decision (ROD) EPA selected a remedy that
specified decontamination and demolition of facilities with off-site
disposal of debris; soil excavation with on-site low-temperature
thermal aeration; vacuum-enhanced groundwater extraction, on-site
treatment, and discharge of treated groundwater to Quiggle Brook with
institutional controls; and limited action for off-site soils.
    The Remedial Investigation identified eight Remedial Action
Objectives:
    1. Prevent further leaching and migration into the groundwater of
contaminants in the soils on the Site, by removal and treatment of
contaminants above specific concentrations throughout the Site.
    2. Provide rapid restoration of the contaminated groundwater
throughout the Site, to concentrations that will protect current and
future users, as well as natural resources (i.e., wildlife) that come
into contact with the contaminants contained within the groundwater.
    3. Protect off-site groundwater and surface waters (particularly
Quiggle Brook) by preventing further migration of the contaminated on-
site groundwater.
    4. Prevent ingestion or absorption of contaminants (particularly
dioxins) contained within the incinerator equipment remaining on the
Site.
    5. Prevent inhalation of friable asbestos from the Still Building.
    6. Remove all existing structures located on the Site to allow for
the cleanup of contaminated soils found throughout the Site.
    7. Remove all other contaminated materials from the facilities so
that the Site will be suitable for all potential future uses.
    8. Further evaluate and, if necessary, minimize and/or mitigate any
potential risks to public health and the environment from potential
soil impacts due to contaminants which were previously emitted from the
Union Chemical Company incinerator.
    In 1992, EPA entered into a Consent Decree with certain Settling
Defendants to conduct Remedial Design and Remedial Action at the Site
under EPA oversight.
    The remedy selected in the 1990 ROD was modified in 1994, 1997, and
2001 by three Explanations of Significant Differences (ESD) and in 2013
by a ROD Amendment. In June 1994 EPA approved a request from the
Settling Defendants to change the soil cleanup technology from low-
temperature thermal aeration to soil vapor extraction (SVE) with hot
air injection. In addition to the change in technology, EPA also set a
deadline of five years for achieving the soil cleanup standards.
    EPA issued a second ESD for the Site in September 1997 that
modified the remedy for off-site soils. The 1997 ESD changed the length
of time specified in the ROD for meteorological data collection from
five years to three years, thus moving forward the timeframe for
collection of off-site soil samples to determine whether the operations
of the Union Chemical Company incinerator resulted in deposition of
contaminants off-site.
    A third ESD was issued in September 2001 that documented a change
in the technical approach for treatment of contaminated groundwater and
changed the location for discharge of treated groundwater. Three
innovative in situ addition treatment technologies, (i.e., potassium
and sodium permanganate, concentrated hydrogen peroxide, and molasses
and sodium lactate) were injected into groundwater in specific portions
of the Site to treat contaminated groundwater. With fewer extraction
wells needed to control contaminant migration, discharge of treated
water changed from surface water discharge to reinjection into the
ground upgradient of the extraction wells.
    In November 2013, EPA issued a ROD Amendment in which it waived
groundwater cleanup levels due to technical impracticability. The ROD
Amendment was necessary because (1) the original groundwater remedy had
reached the limits of its effectiveness, (2) the three innovative in
situ technologies had proven unsuccessful in attaining the groundwater
cleanup standards, and (3) an evaluation of cleanup alternatives
indicated that no technology was available for achieving groundwater
cleanup standards in a reasonable timeframe due to Site-specific
hydrogeological and contaminant conditions. The ROD Amendment also
adjusted institutional control requirements for the Site.

Response Actions

    In October 1993 EPA approved the Facilities Remedial Design, and
the decontamination and demolition of facilities and off-site disposal
of debris was completed in the spring of 1994.
    Beginning in 1994 and continuing into 1996, on-site meteorological
data was collected to support the off-site soils component of the ROD.
In October 1996 EPA and the Settling Defendants performed joint off-
site soil investigation and in September 1997 EPA issued an ESD
documenting no further action was necessary for the off-site soils.
    In April 1995 EPA approved the SVE and groundwater Remedial Design.
Construction included 28 SVE wells, 94 hot air injection points, 33
groundwater extraction wells, and the integrated treatment system and
was completed in December 1995. Both systems began operation in January
1996. In April 1997 EPA and MEDEP performed a final inspection for both
systems and declared that the remedy was operational and functional.
    The rate of mass removal of VOCs decreased dramatically between
1996 and 1999 using the groundwater extraction system, indicating that
the extraction system was becoming less efficient due to the Site-
specific hydrogeologic and chemical limitations. EPA and MEDEP approved
the Settling Defendants' request to employ innovative in situ
technologies to enhance the reduction of contaminant concentrations.
The first technology involved the injection of permanganate. As a
strong oxidizer, the permanganate was expected to accelerate the
destruction of dissolved chlorinated VOCs. A potassium permanganate
pilot study was completed in October 1997. Based on the results of that
study,

potassium and sodium permanganate were used on an expanded basis in the
summers of 1998, 1999, and 2000 in an attempt to achieve further
reductions in VOC concentrations.
    The second in situ approach was carried out in June 2000 with the
injection of 5% hydrogen peroxide solution into injection well P-17.
This well was selected as it is in the central area of the source area
where the highest VOC concentrations had been detected. Due to the low
capacity of P-17 and concerns about the integrity of the mixing tank,
EPA decided to discharge the remaining solution to several additional
wells located immediately adjacent to well P-17. Comparison of baseline
sampling results to four-week post addition results revealed VOC
concentrations rebounded to their baseline levels, indicating that the
VOC reductions initially achieved were short-term and not sustained.
    Given the relative short half-lives of permanganate and hydrogen
peroxide, carbon sources in the form of molasses and sodium lactate
were added in August and November 2001 to create a reducing environment
to enhance degradation of chlorinated ethane compounds by reductive
dechlorination. Lactate addition was carried out again in August 2002.

Cleanup Levels

    After EPA and MEDEP approval in March 1998, the Settling
Defendants' operation of the SVE system and hot air injection was
discontinued to allow the soils to return to equilibrium prior to the
closure-sampling program. Closure sampling was completed in the fall of
1998. Statistical analysis of the data by three groups working
independently indicated that the soils had been cleaned up to below the
ROD-specified cleanup levels.
    Post-ROD groundwater and surface water monitoring began in the
summer of 1992. The monitoring well network includes wells in the
source area, in areas with the highest groundwater concentrations, and
perimeter wells, near the downgradient boundaries of previously
detectable concentrations. The monitoring leading up to the 2007 Five-
Year Review did not show any concentration increases in the perimeter
wells, indicating that the plume had not expanded since the extraction
system was deactivated in 2000. Subsequent monitoring has confirmed
that the plume has stabilized, yet remains above the ROD-established
performance standards. Consequently, EPA issued the ROD Amendment in
2013 that included a Technical Impracticability waiver recognizing
groundwater performance standards would not be attained in a reasonable
timeframe because of Site geology, hydrology, and characteristics of
the contaminants. Long-term groundwater monitoring will continue to be
performed to ensure that the plume is stable and not migrating out of a
designated Technical Impracticability Zone, which reaches the Site
property boundaries except for the upgradient northwest corner of the
Site.

Operation and Maintenance

    The Operation and Maintenance (O&M) activities associated with the
Site have been periodically updated as the on-site soil component was
completed and again when active groundwater restoration ceased. O&M
activities now consist of annual inspections, long-term monitoring of
groundwater and surface water every other year, and ongoing
decommissioning of the treatment building and redundant monitoring
wells. These activities are outlined in bi-annual work plans that are
submitted and implemented after EPA and MEDEP review and approval.
    Following acceptance of the soil closure sampling results, unused
wells and piping were decommissioned in accordance with the O&M Plan.
    The extraction system has been deactivated. The effluent discharge
line from the treatment building was flushed out, then disconnected
below the ground surface and grouted. The external piping from the
groundwater extraction wells was removed, and groups of extraction
wells were decommissioned in 2005, 2006, and 2010.
    The 1990 ROD and 2013 ROD Amendment required the implementation of
institutional controls for the Site Property and nearby properties to
protect human health and the environment. On August 2, 2017, MEDEP
recorded a Declaration of Environmental Covenant in the chain of title
for the two lots comprising the Site (collectively, Site Property) at
the Knox County Registry of Deeds (Volume 5192, Page 306). Pursuant to
Maine's Uniform Environmental Covenants Act, MEDEP, as the receiver of
the Site Property pursuant to a 1986 court order, granted the property
rights under the Declaration of Environmental Covenant to itself, and
will also serve as the holder of these property interests. EPA has
third party rights of enforcement under the instrument. Among other
things, the Declaration of Environmental Covenant: (1) Prohibits the
extraction of groundwater; (2) prohibits the destruction, obstruction,
tampering, or disruption of wells; (3) prohibits the discharge or
injection of liquids to the subsurface; (4) prohibits the accumulation,
storage, or stockpiling of wastes, as defined in Maine Solid Waste
Management Rules, Chapter 400, and operation of a junkyard or
automotive scrapyard, as defined in 30 M.R.S. Sec.  3752; (5) requires
a sub-slab vapor barrier and ventilation system or a sub-slab
depressurization system for any constructed buildings, and (6) provides
for EPA and MEDEP access to the Site Property.
    In addition to institutional controls for the Site Property, the
1990 ROD also identified a number of institutional controls that could
be taken for properties beyond the Site Property. These controls
included a restriction on the use of groundwater from existing bedrock
wells that are hydraulically connected to the Site, specifically the
well on Town of Hope's Tax Map 8 Lot 45, and advisory controls (e.g.,
well advisories) on surrounding properties.
    The Settling Defendants entered into a Lease and Indenture
Agreement with the owners of Map 8 Lot 45 on May 18, 1992 and the State
of Maine, acting by and through MEDEP. This agreement prohibited the
use of the bedrock well in perpetuity unless released by the Settling
Defendants and MEDEP.
    The 2013 ROD Amendment also calls for environmental deed
restrictions or other mechanisms to limit the use of properties
adjacent to the Site, as deemed necessary by EPA based on new
information including but not limited to the development (or
installation of drinking water wells) on properties adjacent to the
Site or movement of the leading edge of either plume. To date, EPA has
not determined that it is necessary to implement other land use
restrictions on the properties adjacent to the Site.
    With the recording of the Declaration of Environmental Covenant,
the criteria for EPA's Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Government
Performance and Results Act Measure were complete, and EPA Region 1
signed the Superfund Property Reuse Evaluation Checklist for Reporting
on August 17, 2017.

Five-Year Review

    EPA conducts Five-Year Reviews of the Site because hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain on-site above levels
that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. These reviews
are statutory and four have been completed with the most recent one
completed in September 2017.
    The 2017 Five-Year Review concluded the remedy currently

protects human health and the environment because MEDEP is the court-
appointed receiver of the Site Property and as such, use of the Site
Property is controlled by MEDEP, there is no evidence of current
exposure, institutional controls are in place, access to the Site is
assured, and long-term monitoring continues. The 2017 Five-Year Review
identified one issue, the potential presence of the chemicals
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), and
1,4-dioxane, and recommended they be included in an upcoming monitoring
event to determine if these compounds are associated with the Site.
    Pursuant to that Five-Year Review recommendation, on October 23,
2017, the Settling Defendants collected groundwater and surface water
samples for PFOA and PFOS from two overburden wells, two bedrock wells,
and two surface water locations. The samples were analyzed via EPA
Method 537, Version 1.1. Modified, and QA/QC review determined that
results were of acceptable quality. Three of the four wells had
concentrations below EPA's drinking water advisory level of 70 ng/L
(nanograms per liter or parts per trillion) for both PFOA and PFOS.
    The overburden well with the exceedance of both PFOA and PFOS is
historically the most contaminated well in the ongoing long-term Site
monitoring and is located immediately downgradient of the former
facility's discharge trench. The other overburden well and the two
bedrock wells are located 150-450 feet farther downgradient from the
well with the exceedance (and for the bedrock wells, the property
boundary is another 200 feet or more downgradient beyond them). All the
wells are within the Technical Impracticability Zone created under the
2013 ROD Amendment.
    In the two surface water samples collected from Quiggle Brook, PFOS
and PFOA were not individually detected at concentrations exceeding the
method detection limit of 1.0 ng/L but had estimated PFOA
concentrations at the instrument detection limit of 1.0 ng/L at the
location upstream of the Site and 0.8 ng/L at the long-term surface
water monitoring location. There is no EPA advisory level for surface
water. Maine Center for Disease Control has established a surface water
advisory level of 170 ng/L based on recreational exposure (swimming and
wading) and these sample results are below that surface water advisory
level.
    In 2010, 1,4-dioxane was added to the monitoring program. Due to
the elevated levels of other compounds in eight of the ten wells in the
monitoring program, the samples were diluted for analysis and
correspondingly, the Reported Detection Limits (RDL) were raised.
Consequently, the 1,4-dioxane levels were reported as below the
specific reporting limit, ranging from <20 ppb to <2,000 ppb. However,
in the four monitoring events, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, as the RDL
has dropped in five of the eight wells, 1,4-dioxane remained below the
reporting limit. Of the two wells where 1,4-dio+xane has been detected,
the concentrations have decreased so that the latest results are now
also below their respective reporting limits of <20 and <100 ppb. There
is no Maximum Contaminant Level standard for 1,4-dioxane nor was 1,4-
dioxane included the 1992 Maine Maximum Exposure Guidelines (ME MEGs),
which is the Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement. The
current, but unpromulgated ME MEG for 1,4-dioxane is 4 ppb.
    With the recent PFAS sampling indicating one exceedance in four
monitoring wells in the Technical Impracticability Zone, PFAS will be
added to the long-term monitoring program coincident with every
monitoring event that precedes a Five-Year Review.

Community Involvement

    There was an established community group, Hope Committee for a
Clean Environment (HCCE) that was active during the RI/FS and received
support through an EPA technical assistance grant. From 1992 through
the early 2000s, while Remedial Design and then active remediation of
the on-site soils and groundwater, and investigation of the off-site
soils were underway, HCCE met regularly with EPA, MEDEP, and the
Settling Defendants' Project Coordinator. With the termination of the
in situ technologies, these meetings ceased. Communication between
HCCE, EPA, and MEDEP is now primarily through email. In 2005-2006, EPA
convened meetings with community members to develop re-use options.
    EPA and MEDEP have met frequently with the Hope Town Administrator
and have periodically updated the Board of Selectmen. In June 2015, EPA
and MEDEP attended the Town of Hope's Annual Meeting. At that meeting,
the Town voted not to assume ownership of the Site Property should
MEDEP's receivership of the Site Property end. The Town reaffirmed this
position in an October 10, 2017 letter to MEDEP. Beyond these meetings
and periodic communication with HCCE and owners of a right-of-way
easement across the Site Property, there has been little participation
or involvement from other members of the local community.
    EPA discussed the deletion process with the Town Administrator and
offered to meet with the Board of Selectmen if the Town desired a
presentation. Additionally, EPA contacted the HCCE to inform the group
of EPA's plan to delete the Site.

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

    Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA) activities at the Site
were consistent with the ROD, as modified by the ESDs and the ROD
Amendment, and consistent with EPA RD/RA Statements of Work provided to
the Settling Defendants. RA plans for all phases of construction
included a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) dated February 17,
1995 and QAPP Revision 1, dated September 22, 2001. The QAPP
incorporated all EPA and Maine quality assurance and quality control
procedures and protocols (where necessary). All procedures and
protocols were followed for soil, groundwater, and surface water
sampling during the RA. EPA analytical methods were used for all
validation and monitoring samples during all RA activities. EPA has
determined that the analytical results are accurate to the degree
needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA, and are consistent
with the ROD and the RD/RA plans and specifications.
    All institutional controls are in place and currently EPA expects
that no further Superfund response is needed to protect human health
and the environment, except future Five-Year Reviews and ongoing long-
term monitoring. O&M activities were agreed upon by EPA and the
Settling Defendants and are documented in the October 2006 O&M Manual.
These activities include continuing decommissioning of redundant wells,
securing the functioning wells, and maintenance of the soil cap.
    This Site meets all the site completion requirements as specified
in OSWER Directive 9320.2-09-A-P, Close Out Procedures for National
Priorities List Sites. All cleanup actions specified in the ROD, as
modified by the ESDs and ROD Amendment have been implemented and the
implemented remedy has achieved the degree of cleanup or protection
specified in the ROD, as modified by the ESDs and ROD Amendment, for
all pathways of exposure.
    Confirmatory groundwater monitoring and institutional controls
provide further assurance that the Site no longer poses any threats to
human health or the

environment. The only remaining activity to be performed are Five-Year
Reviews, monitoring, and O&M activities described above. A bibliography
of all reports relevant to the completion of this Site under the
Superfund program is in the administrative record for this deletion.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    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.

    Dated: July 9, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018-15622 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P