[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30186-30188]
[FR Doc No: E9-14797]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60126; File No. SR-CBOE-2008-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Order Granting Approval to a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to Margin Requirements

June 17, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On June 2, 2008, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or
``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') a proposed rule change to modify its margin
requirements to facilitate, under certain circumstances, the ability of
account holders to use vested and currently exercisable compensatory
employee stock options (``Vested Employee Options'') issued by publicly
traded companies as collateral for writing call options that have the
same underlying security as the Vested Employee Options. On May 3,
2009, CBOE filed Amendment No. 1. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on May 13, 2009.\3\ The
Commission received one comment letter on the proposed rule change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59876 (May 6, 2009),
74 FR 22613 (May 13, 2009) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter from Kandy Rathinasamy, dated May 15, 2009
(``Rathinasamy Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The Exchange proposes to amend its margin requirements to
facilitate, under certain circumstances, the ability of account holders
to use Vested Employee Options issued by publicly traded companies
(``Issuers'') as collateral for writing call options that have the same
underlying security as the Vested Employee Options. Specifically, the
proposal would allow account holders to sell, as a hedge, listed equity
call options on the same underlying security as the account holder's
Vested Employee Options without the requirement of margin (the
``Transactions''). The proposal would permit account holders to engage
in the Transactions using their Vested Employee Options as collateral.
Currently, such Transactions would be deemed ``naked'' for purposes of
margin rules and subject to a deposit of cash margin, effectively
making the strategies cost prohibitive and impractical. The Exchange
believes that enabling employees who hold Vested Employee Options to
generate income and liquidity on their otherwise illiquid asset through
the listed options markets will benefit investors by providing greater
transparency and liquidity.
    Under Section 220.12(f)(1) of Regulation T,\5\ the Exchange, as a
registered national securities exchange, is permitted to recognize the
type of transactions described below as eligible for margin treatment
subject to the approval of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 220.12(f)(1) of Regulation T (12 CFR 220),
Supplement: Margin Requirements, grants authority to registered
national securities exchanges to promulgate rules relating to call
and put margin requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal would permit account holders to sell listed call
options on the same security that underlies their Vested Employee
Options without the requirement of margin. Given the uncertificated
nature of employee stock options, in order to secure the account

holder's obligations under the Transactions, the proposal would
require:
    1. The account holder to (A) pledge the Vested Employee Options to
the broker-dealer and (B) provide the broker-dealer with an irrevocable
power-of-attorney authorizing the broker-dealer to exercise the Vested
Employee Options on the account holder's behalf if the listed call
options are assigned or if the broker-dealer determines it is
necessary. The irrevocable power-of-attorney may also be used in the
event the account holder wishes to close the listed option position
prior to its expiration and instructs the broker-dealer to exercise
that number of Vested Employee Options necessary to cover the cost of
the closing purchase (the account holder will also have the option of
depositing additional cash in the account holder's account to cover the
cost of the closing purchase).
    2. In the event the Vested Employee Options are exercised between
the date of the Transaction in the listed call options (the
``Commencement Date'') and the date the Transaction is closed (the
``Closing Date''), the shares issued upon exercise will be pledged to
the broker-dealer (thereby replacing the Vested Employee Options that
had been pledged prior to exercise). For example, during the time a
Transaction is pending, the account holder may resign from the account
holder's employment with the Issuer and may be required to exercise the
Vested Employee Options within a certain timeframe following the
account holder's departure. In such a scenario, the account holder
would ask the broker dealer to exercise the Vested Employee Options and
the stock issued pursuant to the exercise would be pledged to the
broker-dealer.
    3. The Issuer will promptly deliver the stock upon payment or
receipt of the exercise notice from the broker-dealer.\6\ The Issuer
will also agree prior to the Commencement Date to waive any forfeiture
conditions that otherwise might apply to the Vested Employee Options
(e.g., upon a termination of the account holder's employment with the
Issuer) as well as any transfer restrictions that would preclude pledge
of the Vested Employee Options to the broker-dealer. In addition, the
Issuer will represent that the Vested Employee Options are covered by
an effective registration statement on Form S-8. If the registration
statement becomes ineffective the Issuer will notify the broker-dealer
immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange will proscribe a set delivery period, which is
expected to be no later than three business days following
assignment of the listed options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Because it is essential that the account holder, broker-dealer
and Issuer cooperate and are each fully informed, agree to and
acknowledge their own and each other's responsibilities, all
Transactions will be governed by an agreement (the ``Agreement'')
entered into by the account holder, broker-dealer and Issuer prior to
the Commencement Date of the first transaction. The Agreement would
generally set forth each party's obligations, representations and
acknowledgements and the terms and conditions governing the
Transactions and must be in a form acceptable to the Exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In this regard, the Exchange currently intends to recognize
the Master Vested Stock Option Monetization Agreement, created by
iOptions Group, LLC, as one acceptable agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Such other terms and conditions prescribed by the Exchange in
accordance with such form, formats and procedures as may be established
by the Exchange from time to time would also apply. In this regard,
upon approval of the proposed rule change and for a period of one year,
the Exchange will require that, prior to the Commencement Date, a legal
opinion with respect to the account holder's and Issuer's legal right
to enter into the Transactions under the terms of the Issuer's employee
stock option plan and related documents (the ``Legal Opinion'') be
obtained in a form acceptable to the Exchange. During the one-year time
period, the Exchange may determine that such Legal Opinion is no longer
necessary and will revise its established forms, formats and procedures
accordingly.

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comment
letter and CBOE's response, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5),\9\ in that the proposed rule change
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The proposed rule change will offer market participants new
trading opportunities and will enhance the Exchange's competitive
position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received one comment letter, in support of the
proposal, stating that the proposed rule change is ``a great idea,
allowing employees to monetize the time value of their options.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rathinasamy Letter, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change to amend the
Exchange's margin rule should be allowed. However, the Commission does
have significant concerns with the amount of control each broker-dealer
has over the Vested Employee Options. One purpose of the margin rules
is to protect broker-dealers in the event of market turmoil. The
broker-dealer must have enough control over the cash or securities it
is holding as margin on behalf of investors to be able to act
unilaterally to protect itself. With Vested Employee Options, the
broker-dealer cannot act unilaterally to use the margin deposited by
the customer (i.e., the Vested Employee Options); instead, the broker-
dealer must rely on another person (i.e., the issuer) to promptly
deliver the required shares. For example, if an issuer notifies the
broker-dealer that there is an ineffective registration statement, it
could prevent the broker-dealer from exercising the options and
receiving publicly tradable shares, a prospect that could cause
financial harm to the broker-dealer.
    The Commission raised these concerns in the Notice by noting in a
footnote that absent relief from the Commission, broker-dealers would
need to take a capital charge for any unsecured margin debt and by
asking questions about how the broker-dealer's legal authority to
exercise the Vested Employee Options could be enhanced and how to limit
the liquidity and operational risks arising from the Transactions. The
Commission received no comments on this footnote or these questions.
Thus, for purposes of determining whether an account is unsecured or
partly secured pursuant to the net capital rule,\11\ including an
account containing a Transaction, a broker-dealer may not include the
value of a Vested Employee Option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-1.

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

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2008-55), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-14797 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 72495]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25756]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3586-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

North Carolina; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of North Carolina (FEMA-3586-EM), dated October 1, 2022, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 21, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this emergency is closed effective October 4, 2022.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-25756 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11747]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04443]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2013-0421; FRL-9907-21-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Alaska;
Anchorage Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan and State
Implementation Plan Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Alaska (the State) submitted two State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to the Anchorage Transportation
Control Program, Anchorage Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maintenance Plan. On
September 20, 2011, the State submitted a SIP revision (2011 Submittal)
that updated Anchorage's carbon monoxide (CO) motor vehicle emissions
budget in the Anchorage CO maintenance area using the EPA's Motor
Vehicle Emission Simulator model. On April 22, 2013, the State
submitted a SIP revision (2013 Submittal) to satisfy the Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 175A(b) requirement for a second 10-year maintenance plan
for the Anchorage CO maintenance area in the form of a limited
maintenance plan (LMP). This LMP addresses maintenance of the CO
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for a second 10-year period,
beyond redesignation of the area to attainment, through 2024. The EPA
is proposing to approve both the 2013 Submittal and portions of the
2011 Submittal that are not superseded by the 2013 Submittal. The EPA
is proposing to approve these SIP revisions because the State has
demonstrated that they are consistent with the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2013-0421, by any of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Mr. Keith Rose, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, AWT-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA
98101.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Keith Rose, Office of
Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only accepted
during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.

Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section
of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Rose at telephone number: (206)
553-1949, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region
10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
direct final action, of the same title, which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register. The EPA is simultaneously approving
the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal
because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval
is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If the EPA
receives no adverse comments, the EPA will not take further action on
this proposed rule.
    If the EPA receives adverse comments, the EPA will withdraw the
direct final rule and it will not take effect. The EPA will address all
public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.
The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: February 13, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2014-04443 Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 16, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15612-15613]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07567]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0305, FRL- 9991-77-OLEM]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Guidance for Applicants Requesting To Treat/Dispose of
PCBs Using Incineration or an Alternative Method

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit a new information collection request (ICR) for Guidance for
Applicants Requesting to Treat/Dispose of PCBs Using Incineration or an
Alternative Method (EPA ICR No. 2596.01, OMB Control No. 2050-NEW) to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, the
EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a request of a new
collection. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 17, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2018-0305, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh Smeraldi, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery (Mail Code 5303P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. The
telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: Guidance documents were developed in 1986 for persons
applying to EPA for approval to dispose of PCBs using incineration
(Sec.  761.70) or a method alternative to incineration (Sec.
761.60(e)). The guidances are split into two document (thermal and non-
thermal) and they present and discuss the format, content, and
suggested level

of detail for approval applications, test plans, and test reports.
    EPA is currently updating these guidance documents and will combine
into a single document. This is a new Information Collection Request
(ICR) that addresses reporting and recordkeeping requirements found in
the updated guidance document identified above. The previous guidance
documents released in 1986 were not required to conduct an ICR so a new
ICR will be created for the updated guidance. While use of the updated
guidance document is voluntary, the PRA still requires the reporting
and recordkeeping of this guidance to be determined. This includes
reading and using the tables provided in the guidance.
    The overall reporting and recordkeeping requirements of a
Sec. Sec.  761.60(e) and 761.70 approval is reported in a separate ICR,
ICR No.1446.12 (PCBs, Consolidated Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements found in docket EPA-HQ-2017-0647). Although this ICR
(2596.01) includes a burden increase in terms of reviewing and using
the guidance document, EPA notes that the guidance will reduce the
overall burden in ICR 1446.12 to respondents applying for a PCB
disposal approval under Sec. Sec.  761.60(e) and 761.70 through
improved clarification and streamlining of the approval process.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR include respondents applying to the EPA for approval to treat/
dispose PCBs using incinerator or an alternative method. This likely
includes entities within the Waste Management and Remediation Services
(NAICS 562) and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS
54) sectors and includes private entities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary, for use in applying
to EPA for approval under Sec. Sec.  761.60(e) or 761.70.
    Estimated number of respondents: Estimated eight respondents
annually.
    Frequency of response: As needed and desired by the respondent in
applying to EPA for approval under Sec. Sec.  761.60(e) or 761.70.
    Total estimated burden: Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b). The
total estimated annual burden on applicants using the guidance is 9.9
hours per applicant.
    Total estimated cost: The total estimated annualized labor costs
for applicants using the guidance is $776 per applicant. The annualized
capital and O&M costs are $0.

    Dated: April 10, 2019.
Barnes Johnson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery.
[FR Doc. 2019-07567 Filed 4-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56890-56895]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25937]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001; FRL-9971-32-Region 1]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Hatheway & Patterson
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Hatheway &
Patterson Superfund Site (Site), located in Mansfield and Foxborough,
Massachusetts, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published
by EPA with the concurrence of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
through Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection (MassDEP), because EPA has determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, monitoring, and five-year reviews, have been completed.
However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under
Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective January 30, 2018 unless
EPA receives adverse comments by January 2, 2018. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2002-0001, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be submitted by
email or mail to Kimberly White, Remedial Project Manager for Hatheway
& Patterson Superfund Site, Office of Site Remediation and Restoration,
Mail Code: OSRR07-1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5
Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912, email:
[email protected] or Emily Bender, Community Involvement
Coordinator, Office of the Regional Administrator, Mail Code: ORA01-3,
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912, email:
[email protected]. 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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the site information
repositories.
    Locations, contacts, phone numbers and viewing hours are: 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: Kimberly White, Remedial Project
Manager for Hatheway & Patterson Superfund Site, Office of Site
Remediation and Restoration, Mail Code: OSRR07-1, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
[email protected] or Emily Bender, Community Involvement
Coordinator, Office of the Regional Administrator, Mail Code: ORA01-3,
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 1 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Hatheway & Patterson Superfund Site (Site), from the National
Priorities List (NPL). 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 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.
    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 Hatheway & Patterson
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.
Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless
adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the state, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other 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 Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the
``state'') prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and
the Notice of Intent to Delete co-published today in the ``Proposed
Rules'' section of the Federal Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the state, through the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), has concurred on the deletion of
the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, The Sun
Chronicle, Attleboro, MA. The

newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning
the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.
    (4) 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.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to
Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA 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 Hatheway and Patterson Superfund Site (Site), known by EPA Site
Identification Number: MAD001060805, is located in the towns of
Mansfield and Foxborough, Massachusetts. Approximately 36 acres of the
Site are located in the Town of Mansfield, which is zoned for
commercial/industrial use. The remaining 1.77 acres are located in the
Town of Foxborough, also zoned for commercial use. The Site is bisected
by the Rumford River, which runs north to south, and by a railroad
right-of-way, which runs east to west.
    Prior to the 1950's, the property was reportedly used for various
activities, including railroad operations, coal storage, bulk chemical
transfer, and storage of electric/utility poles and railroad ties.
Beginning in 1952, wood treatment operations by Hatheway & Patterson
Co., Inc. (Hatheway & Patterson) began. Operations at the Site included
the preservation of wood sheeting, planking, timber, piling, poles and
other wood products and included the use of pentachlorophenol (PCP),
creosote, fluoro-chrome-arsenate-phenol (FCAP) salts, chromated copper-
arsenate (CCA) salts, and fire retardants, including Dricon\TM\ (boric
acid and anhydrous sodium tetraborate). Contamination was initially
discovered in 1972, when a tar seep (approximately 62 feet long and 6
inches thick) was discovered on the banks of the Rumford River on the
southern portion of the property.
    Following the initial discovery of contamination, Hatheway &
Patterson took steps to control the ``oily seepage'' from 1973 to 1991.
Hatheway & Patterson filed for bankruptcy in 1993, leading to a removal
action by EPA in 1993-1995 to address the imminent hazard posed by
abandoned chemicals and waste at the Site. The Site was placed on the
National Priorities List (NPL) by publication in the Federal Register
on September 5, 2002, 67 FR 56757.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study were completed in
2005. As part of the investigation, soil, surface water, groundwater,
sediments and fish tissue were evaluated. The primary contaminants
identified at the Site were arsenic, dioxin, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), pentachlorophenol (PCP) and other semi-volatile
organic compounds (SVOCs). Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (LNAPL) hot
spot areas/isolated pockets of free product and LNAPL-saturated
subsurface soils were also detected throughout the Site.
    The baseline human health risk assessment concluded that exposure
to surface and subsurface soil was associated with an unacceptable
human health risk outside EPA's acceptable risk range under current and
future exposure scenarios. On-site overburden and bedrock groundwater
was also associated with an unacceptable human health risk. The
baseline ecological risk assessment concluded that there was not a
substantial risk from exposure to site-related contaminants. The FS
evaluated alternatives with various combinations of soil treatment
technologies, excavation, off-site disposal of contaminants,
consolidation of contaminated soil and sediments under a cap and
institutional controls.

Selected Remedy

    In September 2005, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) that set
forth the Selected Remedy at the Hatheway and Patterson Superfund Site
to address current and future risks due to direct contact and
incidental ingestion of soil and risks to future users of groundwater.
The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the Site outlined in the ROD
were as follows:

    Surface Soil--Prevent current and future users from ingesting or
contacting surface soils contaminated with arsenic, dioxin,
pentachlorophenol, benzo(a)pyrene, and other Site contaminants that
pose a risk to human health.
    Subsurface Soil--Prevent future users from ingesting or
contacting subsurface soils contaminated with arsenic, dioxin,
pentachlorophenol, benzo(a)pyrene, and other Site contaminants that
pose a risk to human health.
    LNAPL--Prevent further contaminant transfer from LNAPL to
groundwater by reducing LNAPL source material in soil excavation/
treatment areas. Prevent further migration of LNAPL to groundwater
and surface water by removing free product ``hotspots'' to the
extent feasible.

    The Selected Remedy included: Demolition of buildings in and near
Hatheway & Patterson's former manufacturing area; excavation and on-
site consolidation of soils contaminated with arsenic and
pentachlorophenol under a low-permeability cover, after being
stabilized with cement to achieve leachability criteria; disposal of
soil contaminated with dioxin and free product LNAPL at a licensed off-
site facility; institutional controls to prohibit the use of Site
groundwater and restrict land uses in a manner that ensures the
protectiveness of the remedy as described in the ROD; long term
monitoring of groundwater, surface water, sediment, as well as fish
tissue analysis of specimens caught in the Rumford River; and Five-Year
Reviews of the remedy.
    Modifications to the remedy were documented in the 2011 Explanation
of Significant Differences (ESD). Based on a zoning change for the
Foxborough parcel from residential use to ``Limited Industrial'' use,
and intended reuse of the parcel as a parking lot, EPA and MassDEP
determined that the Foxborough parcel should be remediated to a
Reasonably Anticipated Future Use of commercial/open space. Therefore,
the cleanup level for arsenic was changed for this parcel, and it was
then used as a consolidation area for soils contaminated with arsenic
and covered with asphalt in order to facilitate the use of the parcel
as a parking lot. The ESD also documented that PCP and arsenic-
contaminated soils in the Mansfield portion of the Site were disposed
at an off-site facility rather than consolidated on-site as described
in the ROD. In addition, the ESD clarified the extent of institutional
controls to be placed on the Site properties.

Response Actions

    Through an Interagency Agreement with EPA Region 1, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers New England District (USACE) performed the Selected
Remedy. Remedial construction activities commenced in September 2009
and were substantially completed in September 2010. A total of 34,000
tons of soil was removed from the Northern Mansfield Property and the
Foxborough Property and 9,500 tons of soil was removed from the eastern
portion of the Southern Mansfield Property for off-site disposal to a
RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste landfill, Envirosafe of Oregon, Ohio.
Approximately 5,000 tons of soil exceeding arsenic cleanup levels were
consolidated in the ``Capped Consolidation Area'' on the Foxborough
Property under a multi-layer low-permeability barrier (i.e., the
asphalt cover). A small portion of land along the western boundary of
the Foxborough Property, approximately 30 feet wide, was left unpaved.
All portions of the Foxborough Property that are not part of the Capped
Consolidation Area are referred to as the ``Unpaved Area''. The Unpaved
Area of the Foxborough Property was cleaned-up to the same level that
was being used in the rest of the Site in Mansfield that was zoned open
space/commercial.
    The properties owned by the towns of Mansfield and Foxborough have
institutional controls in the form of Notice of Activity and Uses
Limitations (NAULs), to prevent uncontrolled access to the remaining
contamination. Institutional controls were also placed on the railroad
right-of way, owned by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation,
in the form of signage to prevent the potential exposure to any future
utility workers. The property owners are required comply with the
institutional controls for the Site; this will be verified during the
Five-Year Reviews.

Cleanup Levels

    The source control remedy at the Site was performed in accordance
with EPA-approved plans and specifications. No additional EPA
construction is anticipated at the Site. The source control remedial
cleanup levels (listed below) were set in the ROD based on commercial/
open-space reuse:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Cleanup  level
                       Contaminant                             (ppm)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzo(a)pyrene..........................................             2.1
Dioxin..................................................           0.001
Arsenic.................................................            16.0
Pentachlorophenol.......................................            90.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the remedial action, if contaminants of concern (COCs) were
detected above the clean-up criteria listed above, excavation continued
horizontally and vertically until either: (1) Post-excavation
confirmatory samples met the clean-up criteria; (2) planned excavation
limits along County Street and the railroad right of way were met, or
(3) for vertical excavation, the water table was reached.
    Post-excavation confirmatory sampling was performed in conjunction
with excavation activities from the bottom of excavation and ``clean''
perimeter embankment and tested for the COCs. Generally, as excavation
was completed in a grid cell area, confirmatory soil samples were
collected from the bottom and sidewalls of the excavation. Bottom
samples were comprised of a five-point composite sample collected from
the center and four corners of the excavation cell. Sidewall samples
were collected from the sidewalls of excavations when grids were
adjacent to the Site perimeter. If excavation sidewalls were greater
than three feet in depth, an additional sample was collected below this
interval to the bottom of the excavation. All samples collected and
analytical results are summarized in the Remedial Action Completion
Report, dated August 2011.

Operation and Maintenance

Institutional Controls
    Institutional controls in the form of enforceable Notices of
Activity and Use Limitations (NAULs) were recorded with the deed on
properties associated with the Site, as listed below:

    Northern Mansfield Property, 35 County St., Mansfield, MA [Map
19 Lot 210, Book 6160 Page 89] (Northern Bristol County Registry of
Deeds),
    Southern Mansfield Property, Morrow St., Mansfield, MA [Map 18
Lot 230-235, Book 2164 Page 64] (Northern Bristol County Registry of
Deeds), and
    Foxborough Property, 41 County St., Foxborough, MA [Map 158 Lot
4060, Book 11412 Page 408] (Norfolk County Registry of Deeds).

    The NAUL on each property specifies the current allowable and
prohibited uses of the property, and establishes limits and conditions
on the future uses of contaminated portions of the property. The
restrictions are different for each property, but generally restrict
the use of groundwater and subsurface soils where contamination remains
on the site. The NAUL provides information about the risks remaining at
the Site for current and future owners and interest holders. The NAULs
require that the site owner submit annual reports to EPA and MassDEP
regarding the status of the ICs. EPA will also assess site conditions
and interview town officials as part of the Five Year Review process to
confirm that only the permitted uses have taken place on the restricted
properties. Should there be violations of the restrictions contained in
the NAUL, the state has the authority to take an enforcement action
against any property owner.
    In addition to NAULs, institutional controls in the form of signage
were used along the railroad right-of-way that intersects the Site
stating to contact the property owner before soils are disturbed. The
signage along the railroad right-of-way will be inspected periodically
at a minimum every five years as part of EPA's Five Year Review process
and/or during regular operation and maintenance activities conducted by
the state.
Long-Term Groundwater, Surface Water and Sediment Monitoring
    The ROD required long-term monitoring of groundwater, surface
water, fish tissue and sediment, and operation and maintenance of the
low-permeability cover. As a result of changes to the remedy documented
in the ESD, the Hatheway and Patterson Operation and Maintenance
Manual, dated August 2017 requires semi-annual monitoring of
groundwater following the first five-year review, and sampling of
sediment and surface water at least once every five years following the
second five-year review. The 2017 Operation and maintenance (O&M)
Manual also provides an explanation for eliminating the fish tissue
sampling requirement which is primarily due to the lack of fish in the
Rumford River.
    The ROD contains performance standards for on-site groundwater and
for groundwater at the boundary of the Site. If monitoring indicates
exceedances of the on-site groundwater performance standards, further
evaluation of the impacts to surface water and sediments is needed. If
monitoring indicates exceedances of the Site boundary groundwater
performance standards, the ROD requires an evaluation of whether off-
site receptors are at risk. MassDEP is the lead agency performing the
O&M, including the groundwater, surface water and sediment monitoring
for the Site.

Five-Year Review

    Five-year reviews are required at the Site because hazardous
substances will remain at the Site above concentration levels that
would allow for unrestricted use and unrestricted exposure after the
completion of all remedial actions. Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c),
NCP Section 300.400(f)(4)(ii) and as provided in OSWER Directive
9355.7-03B-P, June 2001, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, EPA
must conduct statutory five-year reviews at the Site. The purpose of
these reviews is to evaluate whether the selected remedy remains
protective of human health and the environment. These five-year reviews
are required no less often than each five years after the initiation of
the remedial action. EPA may terminate these reviews when no hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels
that allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure.
    The first five-year review was conducted in 2014, and found that
the remedy at the Hatheway & Patterson Superfund Site currently
protects human health and the environment. Several issues were raised
in the 2014 Five-Year Review and resolved as discussed below.
    Institutional Controls: At the time of the 2014 Five-Year Review,
institutional controls were not in place. Between 2015 and 2017, all
institutional controls for the Site were implemented.
    Sediment Sampling: An issue was noted with the sediment sampling
locations. To address the issue additional sediment sampling was
performed and the results showed contaminants concentrations in
sediment at the Site remain protective of human health and the
environment.
    Fish Tissue and Surface Water Sampling: Fish tissue and surface
water sampling were not performed as required by the ROD. To address
this issue, the 2017 O&M Manual was written to reflect site conditions
(a lack of fish in the Rumford River) and to require sediment and
surface water monitoring at a minimum in conjunction with the five-year
reviews.
    Groundwater: Two issues related to groundwater were raised in the
2014 Five-Year review. First, to determine whether a detection of a
contaminant of concern at an off-site well was site actual and
persistent; and second, to evaluate whether the active irrigation wells
outside the compliance boundary have impacted groundwater flow
directions. To address the first issue, additional sampling was
performed at the off-site well which showed the contaminant was below
state groundwater standards and was likely not site-related. To address
the second issue, EPA compiled a technical memorandum documenting that
the irrigations wells are not impacting groundwater flowpaths near the
Site. Also, periodic groundwater monitoring will continue to confirm
that off-site wells are not impacted.
    The 2014 Five-Year Review found that the remedy at the Hatheway &
Patterson Superfund Site protects human health and the environment
because remediation of the soil (soil removal and on-site
consolidation) has been completed to cleanup levels that are considered
protective for the anticipated future use of the property, and there is
no current use of on-site groundwater which is classified as non-
potable. Institutional controls have been created and recorded to
restrict inappropriate land uses (including use of groundwater) and
protect the consolidation area cover. Operation and maintenance
activities have been initiated and will ensure that the consolidation
area and associated components of the remedy (e.g., groundwater
monitoring wells) remain in good condition. In addition, monitoring of
groundwater will continue to assess the protectiveness of the remedy.

Community Involvement

    Throughout the Site's history, EPA has kept the community and other
interested parties apprised of Site activities through informational
meetings, fact sheets, press releases, and public meetings. A Community
Relations Plan was established before remedial actions were performed
at the Site to address issues of community concern and community
relation activities conducted by EPA. Activities included providing
information concerning the progress of remedial activities to
interested citizens and allowing those individuals or groups an
opportunity to provide comments as EPA conducts remedial activities at
the Site. EPA also issued press releases announcing the start and
conclusion of the five-year review and will continue to do so.

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 and EPA RD/RA Statements of Work provided
to USACE. RA plans for all phases of construction included a Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) dated October 2009 and QAPP Revision 1,
dated March 2010. The QAPP incorporated all EPA and state quality
assurance and quality control procedures and protocols (where
necessary). All procedures and protocols were followed for soil,
sediment, water, and air 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.
    Operation and maintenance (O&M) activities were agreed upon by EPA
and the state following construction of the remedy. The operation and
maintenance activities are documented in the 2017 O&M Manual. The state
preforms O&M at the Site and will follow state quality assurance/
quality control plans associated with the 2017 O&M plan.
    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 and ESD
have been implemented. Confirmatory ground-water 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 is O&M that the state has
guaranteed. Five year reviews and monitoring will also be conducted at
the Site. A bibliography of all reports relevant to the completion of
this Site under the Superfund program is in the administrative record
for this deletion.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
through the Department of Environmental Protection, has determined that
all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and
maintenance, monitoring, and five-year reviews have been completed.
Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective January 30, 2018 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
January 2, 2018. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period, EPA will publish a

timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the
effective date of the deletion, and it will not take effect. EPA will
prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process
on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already
received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Dated: October 18, 2017.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 1.

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

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

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

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

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ``MA'',
``Hatheway and Patterson Company'', ``Mansfield''.

[FR Doc. 2017-25937 Filed 11-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57101-57102]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22867]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4080-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4080-DR), dated August 29, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 1, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 29, 2012.

    Ascension, Lafourche, Livingston, and Orleans Parishes for
Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and
emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including direct
federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator,
    Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-22867 Filed 9-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 237 (Monday, December 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 73490]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29672]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4090-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Delaware; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Delaware (FEMA-4090-DR), dated November 16,
2012, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 16, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated November 16, 2012, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Delaware resulting from Hurricane Sandy during the period of
October 27 to November 8, 2012, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Delaware.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jack Schuback, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Delaware have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Kent, New Castle, and Sussex Counties for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Delaware are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-29672 Filed 12-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 169 (Wednesday, August 31, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54093-54095]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0910; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-151-AD;
Amendment 39-16797; AD 2011-18-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    There have been three in-service reports of cracked barrel nuts
found at the front spar locations of the wing-to-fuselage attachment
joints. Additionally, three operators have reported finding a loose
washer in the barrel nut assembly. Failure of the barrel nuts could
compromise the structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage
attachments.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition could result in separation of the wing from the
airplane during flight. This AD requires actions that are intended to
address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 15, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of September 15,
2011.
    We must receive comments on this AD by October 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Emergency Airworthiness
Directive CF-2011-24, dated July 21, 2011 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    There have been three in-service reports of cracked barrel nuts
found at the front spar locations of the wing-to-fuselage attachment
joints. Additionally, three operators have reported finding a loose
washer in the barrel nut assembly. Failure of the barrel nuts could
compromise the structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage
attachments.
    Preliminary investigation determined that these cracks are due
to hydrogen embrittlement.
    This [TCCA airworthiness] directive mandates an initial and
repetitive [torque checks to determine if the bolt pre-load is
correct and, if necessary], detailed inspection of the barrel nuts
[and cradle for cracking, pitting, and corrosion; and replacement of
hardware if necessary].

The unsafe condition could result in separation of the wing from the
airplane during flight.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-25, dated July
20, 2011. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between the AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the AD.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
failure of the wing-to-fuselage attachments could result in separation
of the wing from the airplane during flight. Therefore, we determined
that notice and opportunity for public

comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause
exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0910; Directorate
Identifier 2011-NM-151-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 AD:

2011-18-15 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-16797. Docket No. FAA-
2011-0910; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-151-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective
September 15, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401,
and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers
4001 and subsequent.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continued airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    There have been three in-service reports of cracked barrel nuts
found at the front spar locations of the wing-to-fuselage attachment
joints. Additionally, three operators have reported finding a loose
washer in the barrel nut assembly. Failure of the barrel nuts could
compromise the structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage
attachments.

The unsafe condition could result in separation of the wing from the
airplane during flight.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Initial and Repetitive Inspections

    (g) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or
(g)(2) of this AD: Do a torque check to determine if the bolt
preload is correct, and if the preload is correct, before further
flight, do a detailed inspection of each barrel nut and cradle for
cracking, pitting or corrosion, in accordance with paragraph 3.B.,
part A, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert
Service Bulletin A84-57-25, dated July 20, 2011. Repeat the torque
check and, as applicable, the inspection thereafter at intervals not
to exceed 2,000 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 1,900 or more total
flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, or for which it
has been 12 months or more since the date of issuance of the
original Canadian airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance
of the original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness as of
the effective date of this AD: Within 100 flight hours or 10 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 1,900 total
flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, and for which it
has been less than 12 months since the date of issuance of the
original Canadian airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance
of the original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness as of
the effective date of this AD: Prior to the accumulation of 2,000
total flight hours or within 12 months since the date of issuance of
the original Canadian standard airworthiness certificate or the date
of issuance of the original Canadian export certificate of
airworthiness, whichever occurs first.

Corrective Actions

    (h) If any bolt preload is found to be incorrect (i.e., the ring
can be rotated during any torque check required by this AD), before
further flight, replace all hardware at that location (except the
saddle washer and retainer) in accordance with paragraph 3.B., part
B, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service
Bulletin A84-57-25, dated July 20, 2011.
    (i) If any crack, pitting, or corrosion of the barrel nut or
cradle is found during any inspection required by this AD, before
further flight, replace all hardware at that location (except the
saddle washer and retainer) in accordance with paragraph 3.B., part
B, of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service
Bulletin A84-57-25, dated July 20, 2011.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (j) Accomplishment of torque checks, initial inspections, or
replacements before the effective date of this AD, in accordance
with Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-19, dated February 1,
2008; Revision A,

dated February 6, 2008; Revision B, dated March 6, 2008; or Revision
C, dated August 20, 2008; is acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
However, the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of
this AD must be continued at the time specified.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Special Flight Permits

    (k) Special flight permits, as described in Section 21.197 and
Section 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197
and 21.199), may be issued to operate the airplane to a location
where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished, but
concurrence by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, is required prior to issuance of the special flight
permit. Before using any approved special flight permits, notify
your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics
inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector,
your local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). Operators must
request a repair drawing from Bombardier which provides
recommendations for a one-time special flight permit. The repair
drawing will be applicable to the operator's aircraft serial number
only. Special flight permits may be permitted provided that the
conditions specified in paragraphs (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(3), (k)(4),
and (k)(5) of this AD are met.
    (1) Only one barrel nut out of four is cracked, one cradle is
cracked, or one washer is loose; all other strut bolt locations must
be free of damage.
    (2) The airplane must operate with reduced airspeed not to
exceed 180 KIAS [knots indicated air speed]. No passengers and no
cargo are onboard.
    (3) The airplane must not operate in known or forecast
turbulence, other than light turbulence.
    (4) The airplane descent rate on landing flare-out is not to
exceed 5 feet per second.
    (5) Heavy braking or hard turning of the airplane upon landing
is to be avoided if possible.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (l) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, ANE-
170, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 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 ACO, send it to Attn: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-794-
5531. 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (m) Refer to MCAI Canadian Emergency Airworthiness Directive CF-
2011-24, dated July 21, 2011; and Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin
A84-57-25, dated July 20, 2011; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin A84-57-25,
dated July 20, 2011, to do the actions required by this AD, unless
the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 19, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-22013 Filed 8-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P