[Federal Register: May 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 102)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30294-30298]
[DOCID:fr26my06-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 62

[FEMA-2005-0057]
RIN 1660-AA41

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); Appeal of Decisions
Relating to Flood Insurance Claims

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Department of
Homeland Security.

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This interim final rule will amend the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations to include an appeals process for
NFIP policyholders as required by Congress in Section 205 of the
Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act (FIRA) of 2004.

DATES: Effective: This rule is effective June 26, 2006. Comments:
Comments due on or before July 25, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket Number FEMA-
2005-0057, by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket Number FEMA-2005-0057 in
the subject line of the message.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General
Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Room 406, 500 C Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20472.
    Instructions: All Submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number (if available) for this interim final rule. All
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided. For

detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the ``Public
Participation'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Submitted comments may also be inspected at FEMA,

Office of General Counsel, 500 C Street, SW., Room 406, Washington, DC
20472.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Shortley, Director of Claims,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> (Phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (facsimile), or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this notice by
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the
interim final rule. FEMA also invites comments that relate to the
economic, environmental, or federalism affects that might result from
this interim final rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance
to FEMA in developing this interim final rule will reference a specific
portion of the interim final rule, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that
support such recommended change. See ADDRESSES above for information on
how to submit comments.

Background

    In the face of mounting flood losses and escalating costs of
disaster relief to the taxpayers, the NFIP was established by Congress
as part of the National

Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (the Act). Public Law 90-448, Title XII
(Aug. 1, 1968), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4001, et seq. The intent of the
NFIP is to reduce future flood damage through community floodplain
management ordinances, and to make risk-based flood insurance generally
available for property owners. FEMA was designated by Congress to be
the administrator of the NFIP.
    In 1983, FEMA partnered with the private insurance industry to
expand the NFIP policy base. This partnership between FEMA and the
private sector property insurance companies is termed the Write Your
Own (WYO) Program.
    The WYO Program is a cooperative undertaking between the insurance
industry and FEMA. The WYO Program allows participating property and
casualty insurance companies to issue and service the NFIP Standard
Flood Insurance policies (SFIPs) in their own names. FEMA also uses the
services of contractors to process NFIP policy information from the WYO
Companies and the agents and to service SFIPs sold directly by FEMA.
Contractors are sometimes employed by the WYO Companies to handle and
adjust claims.
    Section 205 of the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance
Reform Act (FIRA) of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-264 (June 30, 2004)), requires
FEMA to establish by regulation an additional process for the appeal of
decisions of flood insurance claims issued through the NFIP. This
process will enable policyholders to formally appeal the decisions of
any insurance agent or adjuster, or insurance company, or any FEMA
employee or contractor with respect to their SFIP claims, proofs of
loss, and loss estimates.
    FEMA traditionally has used an informal process to handle appeals
regarding decisions related to coverage or claims under the NFIP. The
initial correspondence and associated claims documentation are reviewed
and additional investigation is conducted as necessary. The Federal
Insurance Administrator is responsible for decisions on informal
claims, and the appropriate entities are notified to facilitate full
resolution of the appeal. FEMA is now codifying into regulation,
pursuant to the FIRA of 2004, its informal appeals process.
    Under this new appeals process, FEMA will acknowledge receipt of a
policyholder's appeal in writing and will advise the policyholder if
additional information is required in order to consider fully the
appeal. FEMA will review the documentation submitted by the
policyholder and will conduct any necessary additional investigation.
FEMA will advise the policyholder and the appropriate flood insurance
carrier of FEMA's decision regarding the appeal.

Discussion

    The Act and the SFIP authorize an insured (or policyholder) who is
dissatisfied with an insurer's decision to deny a claim, in whole or
part, to file a lawsuit in Federal district court for the disallowed
portion of the claim, or to invoke the appraisal provision of the SFIP,
a procedure to resolve disputes regarding the actual value of covered
losses. This rule provides a formal appeals process for resolving flood
insurance disputes prior to litigation.
    The appeals process outlined in this interim final rule does not
abolish or replace the right to file a lawsuit against the insurer
pursuant to the Act (42 U.S.C. 4072), nor does it expand or change the
one-year statute of limitation to file suit against the insurer for the
disallowed portion of the insured's claim. To avoid potentially
conflicting results and duplicative efforts, an insured who files suit
against an insurer is prohibited from filing an appeal under this
appeals process.
    Similarly, this appeals process is not meant to provide an insured
with multiple administrative, pre-litigation remedies. Accordingly, an
insured who seeks to resolve issues regarding the actual cash value or,
if applicable, replacement cost of damaged property, must elect to
resolve this dispute through only one of the following: the appraisal
provision in the SFIP or through this appeals process.
    Finally, this rule does not amend or change the conditions
necessary to recover under the SFIP. In the case of a flood loss to
insured property, the insured must comply with the requirements set out
in the SFIP, including, but not limited to, providing the insurer with
prompt notice of the loss, submitting a valid proof of loss within 60
days after the loss, cooperating with the adjuster, separating damaged
and undamaged property so that the insurer may examine it, and
preparing an inventory of damaged personal property. See SFIP 44 CFR
Part 61, App.A(1), Part 61, App. A(2), Part 61, App. A(3).
    This appeals process is available after the issuance of the
insurer's final claim determination, which is the insurer's written
denial, in whole or in part, of the insured's claim. Once the final
claim determination is issued, an insured may appeal any action taken
by the insurer, FEMA employee, FEMA contractor, insurance adjuster, or
insurance agent. An insured must file an appeal within 60 days after
receiving the insurer's final claim determination.

Administrative Procedure Act Statement

    In general, FEMA publishes a rule for public comment before issuing
a final rule, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553 and 44 CFR 1.12. However, the APA exempts from public notice and
comment requirements those rules pertaining to ``agency organization,
procedure or practice.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). As the instant rule merely
prescribes an available procedure being established by FEMA, it is
exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the APA.
    Moreover, the APA provides an exception from the requirements where
the agency for good cause finds the procedures for comment and response
contrary to public interest. For the reasons set forth below, FEMA has
determined that such good cause is present in the instant case.
    Hurricane Katrina caused monumental flooding which Hurricane Rita
exacerbated. The magnitude and severity of the flood losses related to
these hurricanes are unprecedented in the history of the NFIP. FEMA
estimates that Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma will result in
approximately 240,000 flood insurance claims. This significantly
exceeds the highest number of claims filed from any single event in the
NFIP's history, and will more than triple the total number of claims
filed in 2004. The public benefit of this rule is to establish a formal
appeals process as soon as possible. Therefore, FEMA believes it is
contrary to the public interest to delay the benefits of this rule. In
accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3),
FEMA finds that there is good cause for the interim final rule to be
published without a prior public comment period in order to allow
processes for the appeals to be put into place prior to implementation.

National Environmental Policy Act

    This interim final rule falls within the exclusion category 44 CFR
10.8(d)(2)(ii), which addresses the preparation, revision, and adoption
of regulations, directives, and other guidance documents related to
actions that qualify for categorical exclusions. Since this is an
administrative action that qualifies for the exclusion category
described in 44 CFR 10.8(d)(2)(ii) and because no other extraordinary
circumstances have been identified, this interim final rule will not
require the preparation of either an environmental

assessment or an environmental impact statement as defined by the
National Environmental Policy Act.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    FEMA has prepared and reviewed this rule under the provisions of
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Under Executive
Order 12866, 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993, a significant regulatory
action is subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive
Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities or the principles set forth in the
Executive Order.
    In determining how to move forward with this rule, binding
arbitration was not an option because the NFIP statutory authority
prohibits it. In the case of non-binding arbitration or mediation, FEMA
recognizes that mediation is an important tool for the resolution of
claim disputes and encourages WYO Companies and policyholders to
participate, or continue to participate, in mediation where it may lead
to an expeditious and mutual resolution of a disputed claim. Mediation
is most effective when it occurs early in the process. Therefore FEMA
encourages the WYO Companies to offer this option to its flood
insurance policyholders since some WYO carriers already offer this
option as a part of their standard claims resolution service for their
other lines of insurance. However, once the dispute has evolved, FEMA
believes the appeals process as described in this interim final rule
would be the most cost effective and efficient mechanism.
    Under the new appeals process, when a NFIP policyholder does not
agree with a decision made by an insurer, including a determination of
any insurance agent, adjuster, insurance company, or any FEMA employee
or contractor with respect to a claim, proof of loss and loss estimate
the policyholder may submit an appeal of the insurer's decision to
FEMA. FEMA will provide written acknowledgement of the policyholder's
appeal and will advise the policyholder if additional information is
required in order to consider the appeal. FEMA will review the
documentation submitted by the policyholder and will conduct any
additional investigation that is necessary to formulate a decision
concerning the appeal. FEMA will advise the policyholder and the
appropriate flood insurance carrier of FEMA's decision regarding the
appeal.
    Currently, when policyholders are not satisfied with a claim
settlement they may informally appeal to FEMA. The initial
correspondence and associated claims documentation are reviewed and
additional investigation is conducted as necessary. The Federal
Insurance Administrator is responsible for decisions on informal
claims, and the appropriate entities are notified to facilitate the
full resolution of the appeal.
    Under section 1341 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 4072) and the provisions
of the SFIP, a policyholder may file suit in the United States District
Court of the district in which the insured property was located at the
time of loss within one year after the written denial of all or part of
the claim. This one year time period starts from the date of the
original denial and not the date of a decision regarding an appeal. A
policyholder may choose the appraisal process under the policy, or
participate in the appeals process created by this interim final rule
instead of filing a lawsuit. The one year period for filing a suit is
not extended by the submission of an appeal or participating in the
appraisal provision of the SFIP.
    Historically, significantly less than 1 percent of all NFIP claims
result in litigation. A policyholder who chooses to file suit either
sues a WYO Company if the policy was issued by a WYO Company or the
Director of FEMA if the policy was issued directly by FEMA. The
policyholder is responsible for their litigation costs including filing
fees, attorney costs, and expenses. Federal law does not allow the
policyholder to recover attorney's fees or other legal expense if they
prevail in the lawsuit.
    The NFIP received 686,389 claims beginning in fiscal year 1996 and
ending with fiscal year 2005. Using these years as a reference point
for the impact on claims when this interim final rule establishes a
formal appeals process, it is estimated that in a typical year, claims
will be slightly more than 68,000. In 2004, NFIP received 75,022
claims; of those claims, FEMA received 360 informal appeals concerning
claim disputes. The total number of claims received from Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma is approximately 240,000 which is
approximately three and a third times greater than an average year and
more than triple the total number of claims filed in 2004. Based on the
above, the number of appeals is estimated to be three and a third times
the number for an average year, or approximately 1,200. However, given
the magnitude and severity of Hurricane Katrina, FEMA believes that
with the publication of this interim final rule and the distribution of
the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Claims Handbook,
FEMA estimates that the number of appeals could be as high as
approximately 2,000 in 2006. FEMA anticipates that, after 2006, it will
receive somewhere between the lower average of 360 and 1200 appeals.
FEMA also anticipates that a successful appeal will result in an
average range of approximately $3,000 to $8,000 more being paid to a
policyholder. Therefore, this interim final rule is not a economically
significant regulatory action; as, FEMA estimates that formalizing
FEMA's appeals process will result in less than $10 million dollars in
additional flood insurance payments.
    Therefore, this rule is a significant regulatory action, but not an
economically significant regulatory action within the definition of
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and it adheres to the principles
of regulation of the Executive Order. OMB has reviewed this rule under
the provisions of the Executive Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This interim final rule contains information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, a person may not be penalized for failing to
comply with an information collection that does not display a currently
valid OMB control number.
    FEMA has submitted an information collection request for review and
approval of an existing collection in use without an OMB control number
under the emergency processing procedures in OMB regulation 5 CFR
1320.13, and requested expedited approval, allowing FEMA to use the
collection for 180 days. The proposed information collection request is
published to solicit and obtain comments from the public and affected
agencies. FEMA will follow this emergency request with a request for a
3-year approval under normal clearance

procedures in accordance with the provisions of OMB regulation 5 CFR
1320.10. Comments should be directed to OMB, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Attention: FEMA Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530.
    FEMA will accept comments on the proposed collection through July
25, 2006. All comments and suggestions, or questions regarding
additional information, including obtaining a copy of the proposed
information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed
to Chief, Records Management Section, Information Resources Management
Branch, Information Technology Services Division, FEMA, 500 C Street,
SW., Room 306, Washington, DC 20472. FEMA requests written comments and
suggestions from the public and affected agencies addressing one or
more of the following points:
    (1) 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.
    (2) 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.
    (3) Suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected.
    (4) Suggestions to 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 following is an overview of this information collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: Existing Collection In Use
Without an OMB Control Number.
    (2) Title of the Forms/Collection: National Flood Insurance Program
Appeals Process.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of
FEMA sponsoring the collection: Forms are not used in the appeals
process, but rather the policyholder will submit a letter requesting an
appeal.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as
well as a brief abstract. Primary: National Flood Insurance Program
policyholders that dispute the results of their claim, proof of loss,
and loss estimate determinations. These policyholders will be asked to
provide relevant information that will facilitate the resolution of the
appeal. Brief abstract: This information collection implements the
mandates of section 205 of the FIRA of 2004 to establish by regulation
what was traditionally an informal appeals process for NFIP
policyholders in cases of unsatisfactory decisions on claims, proof of
loss, and loss estimates made by any insurance company, agent,
adjuster, or FEMA employee or contractor.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond to the FIRA of
2004 appeals process: It is estimated that in a typical year claims
received will be approximately 68,000 resulting in 360 appeals.
However, considering the recent impact of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and
Wilma in the number of claims received referenced earlier, the program
has estimated that approximately 2,000 respondents per year will file
an appeal, each spending an average of two hours drafting the letter
and compiling the required information.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated
with the collection: 4,000 hours per year.
    If additional information is required, contact: Sylvia Correa,
FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 316, Washington, DC 20472.

Executive Order 13175, Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distinction of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. It does not have a
substantial direct effect because the rule does not make distinctions
of where the property insured is located, the rule will apply uniformly
to all policyholders regardless if they live on or off Tribal lands.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism, dated August 4, 1999, sets forth
principles and criteria that agencies must adhere to in formulating and
implementing policies that have federalism implications, that is,
regulations that have substantial direct effects on the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. Federal agencies must closely examine the statutory
authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking
discretion of the States, and to the extent practicable, must consult
with State and local officials before implementing any such action.
    FEMA has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and has
concluded the rule does not have federalism implications as defined by
the Executive Order. FEMA has determined the rule does not
significantly affect the rights, roles, and responsibilities of States,
and involves no preemption of State law nor does it limit State
policymaking discretion.

Executive Orders 12898 and 12948, Environmental Justice

    Under Executive Orders 12898 and 12948, respectively, ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations,'' FEMA incorporates environmental justice into
our policies and programs. Executive Order 12898 requires each Federal
agency to conduct its programs, policies, and activities that
substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that
ensures those programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect
of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the
benefits of, or subjecting persons to discrimination because of their
race, color, or national origin. Executive Order 12898 also requires
that each Federal Agency shall identify and address as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations.
    FEMA does not anticipate that actions under the rule would have a
disproportionately high and adverse human health effect on any segment
of the population. FEMA has determined that the requirements of these
Executive Orders do not apply to this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) mandates that an agency
conduct an RFA analysis when an agency is ``required by section 553 * *
*, or any other law, to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking
for any proposed rule, or publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking for
interpretative rule involving the internal revenue laws of the United
States * * *.'' 5 U.S.C. 603(a). RFA analysis is not required when a
rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C.
553(b). FEMA has determined that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B) to exempt this rule from the notice and comment requirements
of 5 U.S.C.

553(b). Therefore no RFA analysis under 5 U.S.C. 603 is required for
this rule.

Executive Order 12988

    This interim final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive
Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 62

    Flood insurance.

0
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, FEMA amends 44
CFR part 62 as follows:

PART 62-SALE OF INSURANCE AND ADJUSTMENT OF CLAIMS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127 of Mar. 31,
1979, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

0
2. Revise the title of subpart B of part 62, to read as follows:

Subpart B--Claims Adjustment, Claims Appeals, and Judicial Review

0
3. Add Sec.  62.20 to read as follows:

Sec.  62.20  Claims appeals.

    (a) Definitions.
    Administrator means the Federal Insurance Administrator.
    Appeal decision means the disposition of the appeal by the
Administrator.
    Decision means the insurer's final claim determination, which is
the insurer's written denial, in whole or in part, of the insured's
claim.
    (b) Appeal. A National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policyholder,
whether insured by a participating Write-Your-Own (WYO) Company or
directly by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), may appeal
a decision, including a determination of any insurance agent, adjuster,
insurance company, or any FEMA employee or contractor with respect to a
claim, proof of loss, and loss estimate. In order to file an appeal,
the insured must comply with all requirements set out in the Standard
Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP). This appeals process is available after
the issuance of the insurer's final claim determination, which is the
insurer's written denial, in whole or in part, of the insured's claim.
Once the final claim determination is issued, an insured may appeal any
action taken by the insurer, FEMA employee, FEMA contractor, insurance
adjuster, or insurance agent.
    (c) Limitations on Appeals.
    The appeals process is intended to resolve claim issues and is not
intended to grant coverage or limits that are not provided by the SFIP.
Filing an appeal does not waive any of the requirements for perfecting
a claim under the SFIP or extend any of the time limitations set forth
in the SFIP.
    (1) Disputes that are or have been subject to appraisal as provided
for in the SFIP cannot be appealed under this section.
    (2) When a policyholder files an appeal on any issue, that issue is
no longer subject to resolution by appraisal or other pre-litigation
remedies.
    (d) Litigation preclusion. An insured who files suit against an
insurer on the flood insurance claim issue is prohibited from filing an
appeal under this section. All appeals submitted for decision but not
yet resolved shall be terminated upon notice of the commencement of
litigation regarding the claim.
    (e) Procedures. To pursue an appeal under this section a
policyholder must:
    (1) Submit a written appeal to FEMA within 60 days from the date of
the decision. The appeal should be sent to: Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administrator, Mitigation
Division, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472;
    (2) Identify relevant policy and claim information and state the
basis for the appeal;
    (3) Submit relevant documentation; and
    (4) Submit a copy of the proof of loss submitted to the insurer as
required in the policy.
    (f) Appeal resolution. (1) FEMA will acknowledge, in writing,
receipt of a policyholder's appeal.
    (2) The Administrator will review the appeal documents and may
notify the policyholder in writing of the need for additional
information. A request for the additional information will include the
date by which the information must be provided, and shall in no case be
less than 14 calendar days. Failure to provide the requested
information in full, or to request an extension by the due date, may
result in a dismissal of the appeal. A re-inspection of the
policyholder's property may be conducted at the discretion of the
Administrator to gather more information. The Administrator will ensure
that all information necessary to rule on the appeal has been provided
prior to making an appeal decision.
    (3) The Administrator will review the appeal documents, including
any reinspection report, if appropriate. The Administrator will provide
an appeal decision in writing to the policyholder and insurer. No
further administrative review will be provided to the insured.
    (4) A policyholder who does not agree with FEMA's appeal decision
should refer to the SFIP, for options for further action (see Part 61,
App. A(1) VII.R., Part 61, App. A(2) VII.R., and Part 61, App. A(3)
VIII.R.). The one-year period to file suit commences with the written
denial from the insurer and is not extended by the appeals process.

    Dated: May 23, 2006.
R. David Paulison,
Acting Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security.
 [FR Doc. E6-8180 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-11-P


48469 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Notices and intermediate dermal toxicity studies with rats, EPA has determined that an added FQPA safety factor of 3x is appropriate of assessing the risk of glufosinate ammonium derived residues in crop commodities. Using the conservative assumptions described in the exposure section above, the percent of the chronic RfD that will be used for exposure to residues of glufosinate ammonium in food for children 1– 6 (the most highly exposed sub group) is 61%. Infants utilize 37% of the chronic RfD. As in the adult situation, drinking water levels of comparison are higher than the worst case DWECs and are expected to use well below 100% of the RfD, if they occur at all. Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will occur to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues of glufosinateammonium

F. International Tolerances Maximum residue limits (Codex MRLs) for glufosinate ammonium and metabolites in or on rice commodities have not been established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. [FR Doc. 02– 18586 Filed 7– 23– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP– 2002– 0084; FRL– 7188– 8]

Pesticides; Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on False or Misleading Pesticide Product Brand Names; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; Extension of comment period.

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of March 28, 2002, EPA published a document announcing the availability of and sought public comment on a draft Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice titled, `` False or Misleading Pesticide Product Brand Names. '' PR Notices are issued by the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to inform pesticide registrants and other interested persons about important policies, procedures, and registration related decisions, and serve to provide guidance to pesticide registrants and OPP personnel. The draft PR Notice provides guidance to registrants, applicants, and the public as to what product brand names may be false or misleading, either by themselves or in association with company names or trademarks. In response to a request from stakeholders, EPA extended the comment period for 60 days, until August 1, 2002, and is now extending the comment period for an additional 90 days, until October 30, 2002. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0084, must be received on or before October 30, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0084 in the subject line on the first page of your response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Kempter, Antimicrobials Division (7510C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305– 5448; fax number: (703) 308– 6467; e mail address: kempter. carlton@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who are required to register pesticides. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents? 1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http:// www. epa. gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select `` Laws and Regulations, '' `` Regulations and Proposed Rules, '' and then look up the entry for this document under the `` Federal Register— Environmental Documents. '' You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. You may obtain an electronic copy of all PR Notices, both final and draft, at http:// www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR Notices. 2. Fax on demand. You may request a faxed copy of the draft PR Notice titled, `` False or Misleading Pesticide Product Brand Names, '' by using a faxphone to call (202) 564– 3119 and selecting item 6146. You may also follow the automated menu. 3.In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0084. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305– 5805.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0084 in the subject line on the first page of your response. 1.By mail. Submit your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 2. In person or by courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The PIRIB is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305– 5805. 3. Electronically. You may submit your comments electronically by e mail to: opp docket@ epa. gov, or you can submit a computer disk as described above. Do not submit any information VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 19: 15 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYN1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYN1 48470 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 142 / Wednesday, July 24, 2002 / Notices electronically that you consider to be CBI. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect 6.1/ 8.0 or ASCII file format. All comments in electronic form must be identified by docket ID number OPP– 2002– 0084. Electronic comments may also be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.

D. How Should I Handle CBI That I Want to Submit to the Agency?

Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. What Action is EPA Taking?

In the Federal Register of March 28, 2002 (67 FR 14941) (FRL– 6809– 9), EPA announced the availability of a draft PR Notice titled, `` Pesticides; Draft Guidance for Pesticide Registrants on False or Misleading Pesticide Product Brand Names. '' The Agency provided a 60– day comment period, which was scheduled to end May 28, 2002. EPA extended the comment period for the draft PR Notice for 60 days in the Federal Register of May 24, 2002 (67 FR 36595) (FRL– 7180– 9), until August 1, 2002, and is now extending the comment period for an additional 90 days, until October 30, 2002.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: July 16, 2002. Marcia E. Mulkey, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 02– 18716 Filed 7– 23– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7250– 7]

LCP Holtrachem Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed Settlement AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent order.

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to enter into a consent order for a removal action pursuant to section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, regarding the LCPHoltrachem Superfund Site located in Riegelwood, Columbus County, North Carolina. EPA will consider public comments on the cost recovery component of the proposed settlement, section VIII, for thirty (30) days. EPA may withhold consent to all or part of section VIII of the proposed settlement should such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate section VIII is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. Copies of the proposed settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U. S. EPA, Region 4 (WMD– CPSB), Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562– 8887. Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of this publication.

Dated: July 11, 2002. James T. Miller, Acting Chief, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management Division. [FR Doc. 02– 18714 Filed 7– 23– 02; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7250– 3]

Notice of Availability of List of Impaired Waters Prepared by the Commonwealth of Virginia Under the Clean Water Act AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: On July 15, 2002, the Commonwealth of Virginia published a notice announcing that it was making available for public comment its proposed `` 2002 303( d) Report on Impaired Waters. '' The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) of the Commonwealth of Virginia prepared this proposed report pursuant to section 303( d)( 1)( A) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U. S. C. 1313( d)( 1)( A), and implementing regulations at 40 CFR 130.7( b). The purpose of today's notice is to provide additional notice to the public of the availability of that proposed report. On July 15, 2002, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality also announced the availability of its 2002 `` 305( b) Water Quality Assessment. ''

DATES: Comments on both reports should be sent by midnight August 16, 2002 to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. In addition, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality will hold public information meetings regarding the 303( d) and 305( b) reports on July 29, July 31, and August 1, 2002. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to Mr. Darryl M. Glover, DEQ Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Manager, at P. O. Box 10009, Richmond, Virginia 23240– 0009, or via e mail to dmglover@ deq. state. va. us. Please include your name, (US mail) address, and telephone number. The public information meetings will be held as follows:   July 29th, 2 p. m.– 3: 30 p. m.— DEQ West Central Regional Office, 3019 Peters Creek Road in Roanoke. For directions please call (540) 562– 6700.   July 31st, 1: 30 p. m.– 3 p. m.— DEQ Northern Va. Regional Office, 13901 VerDate Jul< 19> 2002 19: 15 Jul 23, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 24JYN1. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 24JYN1


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45871-45877]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18189]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9840-3]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Craig Farm Drum Superfund
Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion for the Craig Farm Drum
Superfund Site (Site) located in Perry Township, Armstrong County,
Pennsylvania, 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 Pennsylvania,
through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP), because EPA has determined that all appropriate response
actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, and Five Year
Reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude
future actions under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective September 30, 2013
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 29, 2013. 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-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: John Epps, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3HS22,
Philadelphia, PA 19103.

     Hand Delivery: John Epps, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code
3HS22, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 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-
1983-0002. 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 Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an 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
the disclosure of which 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:
EPA Administrative Records Room, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m.; by appointment only. Karns City Area High School Office, 1446
Kittanning, Karns City PA 16041,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Please call to
schedule an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Epps, Remedial Project Manager,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Mail Code 3HS22, Philadelphia, PA 19103,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region III is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion
of the Craig Farm Drum Superfund 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
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.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective September 30, 2013 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by August 29, 2013. Along with this direct
final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to
Delete in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register. If
adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period
on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the
deletion, and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as
appropriate, 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.
    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 Craig Farm Drum 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 Pennsylvania 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 Commonwealth 30 working days for review of
this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the Commonwealth, through PADEP, has concurred
on the deletion of the Site from the NPL in a letter dated May 1, 2013.

    (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
Butler Eagle. 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 repositories
identified above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and 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 Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site (the Site), CERCLIS ID
PAD980508527, consists of approximately 117 acres located in Perry
Township, in the vicinity of the village of Fredericksburg, near the
western border of Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. The Site is located
approximately two miles east of the Borough of Petrolia and
approximately four miles south of the town of Parker and the Allegheny
River. Land use surrounding the Site is primarily agricultural and
limited residential.
    The Site was historically operated as a strip mine, resulting in
two abandoned mine pits following the cessation of operations, prior to
1958. Typical of strip mining operations in the vicinity of the Site,
the mining pits were cut into a hillside where the coal seam outcropped
or subcropped. The pit walls were formed by the working face (highwall)
of the mine and the spoil piles were staged away from the working face.
    From 1958 through 1963, 55-gallon drums containing still bottom
residue from the manufacturing of Resorcinol at the nearby Koppers
Chemical Company (Koppers) plant were deposited in the abandoned former
strip mine pits, hereinafter known as the north and south disposal
pits. Resorcinol, also known as 1,3-benzenediol, m-benzenediol, 1,3-
dihydroxybenzene, m-dihydroxybenzene, 3-hydroxyphenol, or m-
hydroxyphenol, is an organic compound used as an adhesive enhancer in
the production of automobile tires and in pharmaceuticals.
    The residue, consisting of resorcinol and other higher polymers, is
characterized as a CERCLA hazardous substance but not as a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste. Approximately
2,500 tons of material were placed in the disposal pits by Mr. Herman
Craig, Site owner Paul Craig's brother. During deposition and during
the time the drums were stored on-site, many drums were damaged,
resulting in a release of the residue to the environment.
    The Site was proposed for placement on the National Priorities List
(NPL) on December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58476 (1982-12-30)), and listed on
the NPL on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658 (1983-09-08)).
    Currently, the Site is undeveloped, with the exception of the
components of the remedy. No proposed redevelopment plan currently
exists for the Site. At the time of the Record of Decision (ROD) in
1989, it was anticipated that the Site may be used in the future for
recreational purposes. Due to the extremely rural location and steeply
sloping nature of the Site, commercial or residential development
potential is limited.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    An Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Site was conducted in 1983
prior to the final listing of the Site on the NPL and consisted of the
following components:
     Hydrogeologic study;
     Surface water sampling study;
     Stream biological study;
     Air quality survey.
    Additionally, test pits were installed in 1984 in the vicinity of
the disposal pits to determine the extent and condition of the drums
containing still-bottom residue. The investigation indicated that the
majority of the drums were crushed, broken, or without lids.
    Following the listing of the Site on the NPL in September 1983, the
RI/FS was conducted from February 1986 through November 1987 and
consisted of the following components:
     Biological survey;
     Biota survey;
     Surface water and sediment characterization;
     Groundwater characterization.
    Additional groundwater monitoring wells were installed in November
1988 to further delineate the extent of groundwater contamination.
    Test pits installed in the vicinity of the disposal pits in 1984
prior to the RI/FS indicated the still bottom residue consisted of
black to pink semisolid material with some hardened masses. The north
disposal pit was observed to be approximately 1.2 to 1.5 acres in
lateral extent and the south disposal pit was observed to be
approximately 0.8 to 1.0 acres in lateral extent. Analytical data of
samples collected during test pit installation indicated that the
source material in the disposal pits was located approximately 2.5 and
6.0 feet below ground surface (bgs). Contaminated soil was also
observed in the vicinity of the disposal pits during test pit
installation, particularly in down-slope areas.
    Groundwater quality data collected during the RI/FS indicated the
presence of impacted groundwater in three water bearing zones at the
Site; the unconsolidated materials zone, the upper bedrock (shale)
aquifer, and the lower sandstone aquifer.
    The biological survey conducted during the RI/FS indicated that
macroinvertebrate communities located downstream from the Site in the
Unnamed Creek were stressed due to site-related compounds. The stress
was characterized as a lack of macroinvertebrate species that are
typically an indicator of good water quality. However, analysis of
tissue samples from macroinvertebrates in the Unnamed Creek did not
detect any bioaccumulation or biomagnification of site-related
compounds. No stress was detected in fish species within Valley Run and
the macroinvertebrate community recovered within one mile of the
confluence of Valley Run and the Unnamed Creek.
    The total non-carcinogenic hazard indices (HIs) calculated for each
of the potential receptors were less than 1, indicating that the there
was no excess risk of non-carcinogenic health impacts.
    The excess individual cancer risk to future miners, based on
potential exposure to benzene in groundwater, was lower than EPA's
acceptable risk

range of 10-4 to 10-6. Excess individual cancer
risk was not calculated for future off-site domestic well users because
potentially carcinogenic compounds are not present in the lower
sandstone aquifer, which is the only aquifer that could potentially be
developed for drinking water supply. This evaluation indicated that
there was no excess risk of cancer based on the evaluated exposure
pathways.
    In summary, the risk characterization indicated that the overall
threat to human health posed by the Craig Farm Drum Site was
negligible, primarily due to the limited exposure likelihood based on
the current and future Site uses. The evaluation of potential
environmental exposure pathways indicated that aquatic life within the
Unnamed Creek is being impacted by site-related COCs. Therefore, the
selection of the remedy for the Site was based on the Site's impact to
the environment only, and not on the impact to human health. The Site
was determined to present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
the environment as set forth in Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
Section 9606.

Selected Remedy

    The ROD for the Site was issued on September 29, 1989. The
following Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) were identified:
     Minimize risk to human health and the environment from
direct contact with contaminated material;
     Control the migration of contaminants into nearby surface
waters;
     Control the migration of contaminants into groundwater.
    The ROD divided the Site into three Operable Units (OUs). OU-1
consisted of the resorcinol residue material in the former disposal
pits and an adjacent contaminated soils containing detectable
concentrations (>50 mg/kg) of resorcinol. OU-2 consisted of clean soils
that needed to be moved to access OU-1 material. OU-3 consisted of two
contaminated seeps, identified as Seeps A and B, located downgradient
of the former disposal pits.
    In order to address these OUs and meet the RAOs, the Selected
Remedy in the ROD consisted of the following components:
     Excavation of 32,000 cubic yards of material from the
disposal pits and surrounding areas;
     On-site solidification of excavated material;
     Placement of the solidified material in an newly
constructed on-site RCRA equivalent, double lined, fenced landfill;
     Wetland delineation and subsequent construction of a one-
acre on-site wetland to replace wetlands destroyed in construction of
the on-site landfill;
     Implementation of institutional controls alerting property
owners of contamination;
     Passive collection of groundwater using a seep interceptor
system with off-site treatment;
     Monitoring of both on-site and off-site groundwater and
surface water.
    The 1989 ROD indicated that the completeness of the remedy would be
determined by using an EPA-approved bioassay test procedure. The
bioassay testing has historically been performed on both Seeps A and B
as discussed in the sections below.
    The 1989 ROD also required that a Groundwater Verification Study be
performed during Remedial Design (RD) in to determine if groundwater at
the Site would require further remediation. The Groundwater
Verification Study was conducted in 1991 and indicated that contaminant
levels in groundwater did not differ significantly from those detected
during the RI and would therefore not pose a significant risk to human
health. Based on the results of the Groundwater Verification Study, no
additional groundwater remediation was required.
    Historically, groundwater collected by the seep interceptor system
was taken to a Beazer-owned off-site facility for treatment. However,
that facility was planned to be shut down in 2010. Therefore, from
March 2007 through September 2008, Beazer conducted a Focused
Feasibility Study (FFS) to evaluate additional remedial alternatives
for the wastewater collected by the seep interceptor system (OU-3). As
a result of the FFS, the Selected Remedy was modified by a September
18, 2009 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), consisting of
the following components:
     Installation of an impermeable cap on the 3-acre, former
north pit area to reduce infiltration of clean water through north pit
materials (referred to as the Seep A Cap);
     Excavation/fill of existing ground surface in vicinity of
former north pit to required grade;
     Installation of bioswales or other infiltration features
to direct clean surface water flow from capped area;
     Installation of groundwater infiltration system into deep
bedrock upgradient of the former north pit to prevent upgradient
groundwater from flowing through north pit materials \1\;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although the groundwater infiltration system was selected as
a component of the remedy modification, groundwater monitoring
following the installation of the Seep A Cap indicated that the
infiltration system would not be necessary and the system was not
installed. A Preliminary Design Investigation was conducted to
evaluate the feasibility of installing the system, as documented in
the June 4, 2010 Final Design Report included in the Deletion
Docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Continued maintenance of the Seep A collection trench,
piping, and storage tank to collect contaminated overburden
groundwater;
     Treatment of collected Seep A water at an alternative off-
site treatment facility;
     The Seep B collection trench would remain in place but
valves would be closed so that the system no longer collected water;
     Clarification of the requirements for the institutional
controls selected in the 1989 ROD.

Response Actions

    The Selected Remedy from the 1989 ROD was implemented from May 1994
through December 1995 in accordance with the September 27, 1993
Remedial Design and October 9, 1990 Consent Decree (CD). The final
inspection was conducted on December 15, 1995 and completion of the
Remedial Action was documented in the Remedial Action Completion
Report, accepted by EPA on April 26, 1994.
    EPA issued a Final Close Out Report (FCOR) on December 27, 1995 to
document completion of the remedy specified in the 1989 ROD. The FCOR
documented Construction Completion rather than Site Completion because
institutional controls were not in place at the time of the FCOR.
Additional response actions were also required by the 2009 ESD
following the issuance of the 1995 FCOR, as described below. The
institutional controls were implemented in 2004 in accordance with the
recommendations of the Second Five Year Review and the requirements for
the institutional controls were clarified in the 2009 ESD.
Institutional controls are discussed in additional detail in the
Operations and Maintenance section below.
    The remedy modification in the 2009 ESD was implemented from May
through August 2010 in accordance with the June 4, 2010 Final Design
Report. The final inspection was conducted on September 20, 2010 and
completion of the remedy modification was documented in the November
30, 2010 Remedial Action Report, accepted by EPA on December 22, 2010.

    EPA issued a Revised FCOR on June 19, 2013 to summarize the
findings of the 1995 FCOR, describe the implementation of institutional
controls, and document the additional response actions performed in
accordance with the 2009 ESD.

Cleanup Goals

    The RAOs established in the 1989 ROD have been achieved by the
Selected Remedy, as modified by the 2009 ESD.
    The RAO of minimizing the risk to human health and the environment
from direct contact with contaminated material has been achieved via
the excavation and solidification of material from the disposal pits,
placement of the solidified material in a newly constructed on-site
landfill, and installation of the seep interceptor system. Potential
direct contact was further minimized via installation of the Seep A Cap
over the north disposal pit area.
    Furthermore, although not a component of the remedy, the Site is
located within the Bear Creek Area Chemical Site (BCACS). The BCACS
consists of multiple Sites that are impacted by contaminants primarily
related to resorcinol manufacturing and are being addressed by either
EPA or PADEP. Between 2003 and 2007, PADEP connected residents within
the BCACS to public water and required communities therein to institute
public water connection ordinances. The location of the Site within the
BCACS therefore further reduces the potential for direct contact with
Site-related contaminants in groundwater.
    The RAO of controlling the migration of contaminants into nearby
surface water bodies, primarily the Unnamed Creek, has been achieved
via the installation of the seep interceptor system and enhanced by the
installation of the Seep A Cap. Demonstration of achievement of this
RAO with respect to numerical performance standards is discussed in
additional detail below.
    As discussed above in the summary of the RI/FS, the contaminants of
concern (COCs) at the Site consist of the following compounds:
     Benzene;
     Resorcinol;
     Benzene metadisulfonic acid (m-BDSA);
     Benzene sulfonic acid (BSA);
     p-Phenol sulfonic acid (p-PSA);
     Trihydroxydiphenyl (THD).
    Phenol, m-phenol sulfonic acid (m-PSA), and multiple metals were
also identified as Site COCs in the 1989 ROD, however, these compounds
were eliminated as Site COCs following the Groundwater Verification
Study in 1991. No PADEP Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Substances
(PADEP WQC) existed at the time of the ROD for resorcinol, m-BDSA, BSA,
p-PSA, or THD and no numerical performance standards were established
for these compounds in the 1989 ROD in surface water. Benzene has not
been detected in surface water since 1987 during the RI for the Site
and has therefore achieved the PADEP WQC.
    PADEP WQC were proposed for resorcinol, m-BDSA, BSA, and p-PSA in
February 2012 as show in the table below. No PADEP WQC was proposed for
THD due primarily to the difficulty in analyzing for that compound.
Instead, the remaining resorcinol-related compounds are considered
indicator parameters for THD.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Fish and aquatic life criteria
                                                                 --------------------------------
                                                                    Chronic WQC      Acute WQC     Human health
                            Compound                                 criterion       criterion       criteria
                                                                    continuous        maximum        ([mu]g/L)
                                                                   concentration   concentration
                                                                     ([mu]g/L)       ([mu]g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resorcinol......................................................            7200           28000            2700
m-BDSA..........................................................         1600000         2600000             N/A
BSA.............................................................         1200000         2000000             N/A
p-PSA...........................................................         1400000         3500000             N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Unnamed Creek was considered the receptor for Site-related
contaminants in the 1989 ROD due to the observed impact to
macroinvertebrates in the creek. As discussed above, the ROD includes
an RAO to control migration of contaminants into the creek. In order to
determine if this RAO has been achieved, analytical data from the
Unnamed Creek was compared to the PADEP WQC presented above.
    Sampling of the Unnamed Creek was historically conducted on a
quarterly basis for the first year following construction of the remedy
in 1995, on a semi-annual basis for the second year following
construction, and annually during the third year following
construction. Historic sampling did not indicate the presence of Site-
related contaminants in the Unnamed Creek at that time and sampling of
the creek was discontinued in 1998.
    In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy modification
selected in the 2009 ESD, two additional sampling events were conducted
in the Unnamed Creek in March 2011 and January 2012. During those
sampling events, m-BDSA was detected in the Unnamed Creek at a
concentration of 97 [mu]g/L in March 2011 and 77 [mu]g/L in January
2012, below the criteria listed above by multiple orders of magnitude.
THD was detected at a concentration of 70 [mu]g/L during the January
2012 sampling event and was not detected in March 2011. No other Site
COCs were detected in the Unnamed Creek during either of the sampling
events conducted since the installation of the Seep A cap.
    Additionally, the 1989 ROD indicated that completeness of the
remedy will be determined by performing bioassay testing. Bioassay
testing has been performed on water collected from Seep A and Seep B,
but not on water from the Unnamed Creek. In the 2009 ESD, EPA
determined that water collected by Seep B no longer exhibited toxicity
based on the bioassay testing data. Current data from the Unnamed Creek
indicate that Site COC concentrations are either non-detect or are
below the concentrations detected in Seep B. Therefore, the water in
the Unnamed Creek also does not exhibit toxicity according to the
bioassay criteria. Because the Unnamed Creek is considered the receptor
for Site-related contamination, the remedy for OU-3 can be considered
complete. Water collected by Seep A continues to exhibit toxicity based
on recent bioassay sampling and will continue to be collected as an O&M
task until the bioassay criteria are reached in order to prevent
contaminated groundwater from discharging to the Unnamed Creek. Based
on current contaminant trends in Seep A water, the bioassay criteria
are

expected to be reached in approximately two years.
    Based on a comparison to currently proposed PADEP WQC and Site-
specific bioassay criteria, the remedy has achieved the RAO of
controlling contaminant migration into the Unnamed Creek as specified
in the 1989 ROD.
    The RAO of controlling the migration of contaminants into
groundwater has been achieved via the installation of the seep
interceptor system and enhanced by the installation of the Seep A Cap.
At the time of the ROD, it was determined that the concentrations of
Site COCs in groundwater did not present a current or potential future
risk to human health. Additionally, no Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) for Site COCs existed at the time of the 1989 ROD and no MCLs
currently exist or are proposed. Although not selected as an Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARAR) in the 1989 ROD, since
the ROD was issued, PADEP promulgated a State-Wide Health Standard
(SHS) Medium Specific Concentration (MSC) for resorcinol in groundwater
of 73,000 [mu]g/L for residential use and 200,000 [mu]g/L for non-
residential use. Groundwater monitoring was historically conducted on a
semi-annual basis from 1999 through 2010. The highest detection of
resorcinol during the monitoring period was 50,600 [mu]g/L in February
of 2000, below the PADEP SHS MSCs and concentrations have continued to
decline. Groundwater monitoring has been conducted three times since
2010. In the three most recent sampling events conducted in March 2011,
January 2012, and July 2012 the highest detection of resorcinol was
27,100 [mu]g/L, below the PADEP SHS MSCs. The concentrations of all
Site COCs in groundwater have significantly decreased, in most cases by
an order of magnitude, since the 1989 ROD was issued. Therefore, the
current concentrations of Site COCs in groundwater do not present a
current or potential future risk to human health. Based on this
information, the remedy has achieved the RAO of controlling contaminant
migration into groundwater as specified in the 1989 ROD.
    The remedy is currently protective of human health and the
environment and all RAOs specified in the 1989 ROD have been achieved.
Operation and maintenance of the remedy and institutional controls, as
described below, will ensure the long-term protection of human health
and the environment.

Operation and Maintenance

    Long-term monitoring and maintenance at the Site is conducted in
accordance with the Operations and Maintenance Plan (O&M Plan)
initially dated July 14, 1993 and revised on April 15, 2013 following
the completion of the remedy modification and subsequent initial
monitoring. The O&M Plan, as revised, consists of the following
components:
     Annual site inspection of the following: on-site landfill/
cap, former south disposal pit area, Seep A collection piping, above
ground storage tank, Seep A cap/bioswale/stormwater swale, and
ancillary facilities.
     Groundwater sampling and analysis;
    [cir] Landfill Wells--Hydraulic monitoring and sampling every five
years to coincide with Five Year Reviews;
    [cir] Groundwater Monitoring Wells--Annual hydraulic monitoring,
sampling every five years to coincide with Five Year Reviews.
     Surface water sampling and analysis;
    [cir] Annual sampling through 2014, after which samples will be
collected every five years to coincide with Five-Year Reviews.
     Seep water collection and disposal (seep interceptor
system Seep A);
    [cir] Off-site disposal as needed;
    [cir] Periodic sampling to determine if collected water (Seep A)
meets bioassay criteria.
     Leachate collection and disposal (on-site landfill);
    [cir] Pumping, collection, and off-site disposal as needed.
     Progress reporting;
    [cir] Reporting every five years to coincide with Five Year
Reviews.
    The 1989 ROD for the Site required that institutional controls be
placed on the Site to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy. The 2004
Second Five Year Review indicated that the institutional controls were
not yet in place, and subsequently the institutional controls were
implemented on September 23, 2004 in the form of a deed restriction
consisting of the following:
     No groundwater beneath the Site may be used and no wells
may be installed on the Site for human consumption, irrigation, or
other purpose that may bring it into contact with humans, except for
testing purposes as required by law, remedial action/design, or the
terms of the Consent Decree;
     No structure may be placed on the Site that would disturb
the cap or stabilized contents of the landfill or would otherwise
disturb any component of the remedial action/design without prior
written approval of the Site owner and EPA;
     The Site may not be used for the purposes of living,
dwelling, or overnight accommodations of any type;
     No action may be taken that will interfere with, obstruct,
or disturb the performance of any remedial response, including O&M
     Any Site owner must provide any purchaser with notice of
the terms of the Consent Decree prior to transferring any interest in
the Site.
    The 2009 Third Five Year Review indicated that the requirement for
institutional controls was in the declaration portion of the 1989 ROD
only and not in the remedy selection portion. Therefore, EPA included a
clarification of the requirement for institutional controls in the 2009
ESD to ensure that the controls remain in place and effective.

Five-Year Reviews

    Three Five Year Reviews have been conducted at the Site in 1999,
2004, and 2009. The Protectiveness Statement in the 2009 Third Five
Year Review was as follows:

    ``The remedy at the Craig Farm Drum Site is protective of human
health and the environment in the short and long term. Physical
construction is complete and institutional controls have been
implemented.
    Protection of human health and the environment has been achieved
by the installation of a RCRA-equivalent landfill to contain waste
(OU-1) and a seep interceptor system to collect contaminated
groundwater for off-site treatment (OU-3). Additionally, protection
of human health is enhanced due to the location of the Site within
the Bear Creek Area Chemical Site (BCACS), in which all residents
are required to connect to public water. Currently, design is
underway for the modification of the seep interceptor system by the
addition of an impermeable cap and groundwater infiltration system
to reduce overburden groundwater flow through contaminated material,
further enhancing the protectiveness of the remedy. Finally, the
remedy is protective of both human health and the environment in the
long-term due to the implementation of institutional controls
alerting current and future Site owners of the contaminants on-site
and restricting landfill and groundwater use. The requirements for
the institutional controls at the Site will be clarified in an ESD
to further ensure long-term protectiveness.''

    As previously indicated, the ESD referenced above was issued to
clarify the institutional controls in September 2009. The next Five
Year Review is scheduled to be completed in June 2014.

Community Involvement

    The Site is located in an extremely rural area and few residents
live in close proximity to the Site. Historically, community
involvement activities consisted of a public meeting in 1989 to present
the Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) for the 1989 ROD, availability
sessions during construction of the remedy in 1993 and 1994, and public
notices prior to conducting Five Year Reviews in 1999, 2004, and 2009.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA's
community involvement activities associated with this deletion will
consist of placing the deletion docket in the local site information
repository and placing a public notice (of EPA's intent to delete the
site from the NPL) in a local newspaper of general circulation.

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

    Construction of the remedy at the Site has been completed in
accordance with the 1989 ROD and 2009 ESD, institutional controls are
in place, and O&M is being conducted in accordance with the O&M Plan.
All RAOs, performance standards, and cleanup goals established in the
1989 ROD have been achieved and the remedy is protective of human
health and the environment in both the short and long term. No further
Superfund response, other than operation, maintenance, and Five Year
Reviews, is necessary to protect human health and the environment.
    The Site Deletion procedures specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have
been followed for the deletion of the Site.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
through PADEP, has determined that all appropriate response actions
under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, 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 September 30, 2013 unless EPA receives adverse comments
byAugust 29, 2013. 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 waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 10, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

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

PART 300--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing Craig Farm
Drum Superfund Site, Parker, Pennsylvania.

[FR Doc. 2013-18189 Filed 7-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35843]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14642]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0534]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Umpqua River, Reedsport, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the US 101 Highway Bridge across the
Umpqua River, mile 11.1, at Reedsport, OR. This deviation is necessary
to accommodate electrical system upgrades on the bridge. This deviation
allows the US 101 Umpqua River Bridge to remain in the closed position
during system upgrade and maintenance.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on June 25, 2012 through
5 p.m. June 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0534 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0534 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email the Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth
District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Oregon Department of Transportation has
requested that the US 101 Umpqua River Bridge remain closed to vessel
traffic to facilitate electrical system upgrades to the bridge's
control circuitry. The US 101 Bridge crosses the Umpqua River at mile
11.1 and provides 36 feet of vertical clearance above mean high water
when in the closed position. Vessels which do not require an opening of
the bridge may continue to transit beneath the bridge during this
maintenance period. Under normal conditions the US 101 Umpqua River
Bridge operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.893(a) which states that
the draw shall open on signal if at least two hours advance notice is
given. This deviation period is from 8 a.m. on June 25, 2012 through 5
p.m. June 28, 2012. The deviation allows the US 101 Umpqua River
Bridge, mile 11.1, to remain in the closed position and need not open
for maritime traffic from 8 a.m. June 25, 2012 through 5 p.m. June 28,
2012. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.893(a) at
all other times. Waterway usage on this stretch of the Umpqua River
includes vessels ranging from occasional commercial tug and barge to
small pleasure craft. Mariners will be notified and kept informed of
the bridge's operational status via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners
publication and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as appropriate. The draw
span will be required to open, if needed, for public vessels of the
United States and for vessels engaged in emergency response operations
during this closure period.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 6, 2012.
Randall D. Overton,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-14642 Filed 6-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 73228-73229]
[DOCID:fr09de05-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application for Non-Project Use of Project Lands and
Waters and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

December 2, 2005.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-Project Use of Project Lands And Waters.
    b. Project No: 2146-112.
    c. Date Filed: November 14, 2005.
    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: The Coosa River Project, which includes the
Weiss Lake development.
    f. Location: The proposed action will take place at the Weiss Lake
development at Kessler's Subdivision on Three Mile Creek, which is
located in Cherokee County, Alabama approximately 21 stream miles above
the Weiss powerhouse.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a) 825(r)
and sections 799 and 801.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Keith E. Bryant, Sr. Engineer; Alabama
Power Company Hydro Services; 600 18th Street North, Birmingham, AL
35203;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to

Lesley Kordella at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Deadline for filing comments and/or motions: January 3, 2006.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: Ms.
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project
number (P-2146-112) on any comments or motions filed. Comments,
protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the
internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages e-filings.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee has requested Commission
approval to construct a 22 slip boat house and boat ramp for use by
individual owners of the Kessler subdivision on Three Mile Creek. The
proposed dock structure and boat ramp would be located on a community
access waterfront lot at the east end of the subdivision, which
consists of approximately 90 feet of shoreline. The proposed boat dock
would be constructed of treated lumber and supported on driven piles.
The proposed boat ramp is to be a single land ramp constructed of
concrete. Minimal grading is expected. There will be no septic tanks or
field lines, or facilities for fueling or sewage pump out. There will
be no dredging during construction and the boat dock structure will be
built on site.
    l. Location of the Application: This filing is available for review
at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as
applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to
which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described applications. A copy of the
applications may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant.
If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for
filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of
an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's
representatives.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-7140 Filed 12-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 116 (Friday, June 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 39505]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2023-0042]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on May 30, 2023, the
Association of American Railroads (AAR), on behalf of the six Class I
railroads (BNSF Railway, Canadian Pacific Kansas City, Canadian
National Railway, CSX Transportation, Amtrak,\1\ and Norfolk Southern
Railway) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a
waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad
safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 240 (Qualification and
Certification of Locomotive Engineers) and part 242 (Qualification and
Certification of Conductors). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number
FRA-2023-0042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Note, Amtrak has a similar request pending in Docket No.
FRA-2023-0040 pertaining to the Metrolink service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, AAR requests, on behalf of the Class 1 railroads,
relief required to participate in FRA's Confidential Close Call
Reporting System (C\3\RS) Program. AAR seeks to shield reporting
employees and the Class 1 railroads from mandatory punitive sanctions
that would otherwise arise as provided in Sec. Sec.  240.117(e)(1)-(4);
240.305(a)(1)-(4) and (a)(6); 240.307; 242.403(b), (c), (e)(1)-(4),
(e)(6)-(11), (f)(1)-(2); and 242.407. The C\3\RS Program encourages
certified operating crew members to report close calls and protects the
employees and the railroads from discipline or sanctions arising from
the incidents reported per the C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of
Understanding.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    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 parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, 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 and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by August 15, 2023 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-12932 Filed 6-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P