5370 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Notices 

previous waivers, and instead require a 

full waiver analysis. Specifically, please 

comment on: (a) Whether CARB’s 

determination that its standards, in the 

aggregate, are at least as protective of 

public health and welfare as applicable 

Federal standards is arbitrary and 

capricious, (b) whether California needs 

separate standards to meet compelling 

and extraordinary conditions, and (c) 

whether California’s standards and 

accompanying enforcement procedures 

are consistent with section 202(a) of the 

Act. 

VI. Procedures for Public Participation 

If a hearing is held, the Agency will 

make a verbatim record of the 

proceedings. Interested parties may 

arrange with the reporter at the hearing 

to obtain a copy of the transcript at their 

own expense. Regardless of whether a 

public hearing is held, EPA will keep 

the record open until March 17, 2011. 

Upon expiration of the comment period, 

the Administrator will render a decision 

on CARB’s request based on the record 

from the public hearing, if any, all 

relevant written submissions, and other 

information that she deems pertinent. 

All information will be available for 

inspection at the EPA Air Docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0653. 

Persons with comments containing 

proprietary information must 

distinguish such information from other 

comments to the greatest extent possible 

and label it as ‘‘Confidential Business 

Information’’ (CBI). If a person making 

comments wants EPA to base its 

decision on a submission labeled as CBI, 

then a non-confidential version of the 

document that summarizes the key data 

or information should be submitted to 

the public docket. To ensure that 

proprietary information is not 

inadvertently placed in the public 

docket, submissions containing such 

information should be sent directly to 

the contact person listed above and not 

to the public docket. Information 

covered by a claim of confidentiality 

will be disclosed by EPA only to the 

extent allowed, and according to the 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. 

If no claim of confidentiality 

accompanies the submission when EPA 

receives it, EPA will make it available 

to the public without further notice to 

the person making comments. 

Dated: January 25, 2011. 

Margo T. Oge, 

Director, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, Office of Air and Radiation. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2045 Filed 1–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–1086; FRL–9260–1] 

Potential Addition of Vapor Intrusion 

Component to the Hazard Ranking 

System 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Opportunity for Public 

Input. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (‘‘EPA’’) is soliciting stakeholder 

input on whether to include a vapor 

intrusion component to the Hazard 

Ranking System (‘‘HRS’’). The HRS is the 

principal mechanism EPA uses to place 

sites on the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) National Priorities List (NPL). 

This potential addition would allow the 

HRS to directly consider the human 

exposure to contaminants that enter 

building structures through the 

subsurface environment and thus, 

enabling sites with vapor intrusion 

contamination to be evaluated for 

placement on the NPL. EPA is accepting 

public feedback on specific topics 

related to the potential HRS revision 

(see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this Notice), and will consider 

information gathered during this 

comment period, as well as input from 

three public listening sessions before 

making a decision on whether to issue 

a proposed rulemaking to add a vapor 

intrusion component to the HRS. The 

Agency is requesting comments only 

regarding this potential addition to the 

HRS. The Agency is not considering 

changes to the remainder of the HRS. 

DATES: Comments on the topics 

identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this notice must 

be submitted (postmarked) on or before 

April 16, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments on the 

topics identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this notice, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2010–1086, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; EPA Docket Center, 

Superfund Docket, Mail Code 28221T; 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center—Public Reading Room; EPA 

West Building, Room 3334; 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

• Listening Session: Oral and written 

comments on the topics in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this Notice will be accepted at each of 

the three listening sessions. Follow the 

instructions provided on the listening 

session Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

superfund/sites/npl/hrsaddition.htm for 

preparing written comments to be 

submitted at one of the listening 

sessions. 

Instructions: Direct comments on the 

topics identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this notice to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010– 

1086. 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 

superfund.docket@epa.gov. Note that 

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 e-mail comment 

directly to EPA without going through 

http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

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 along 

with any disk or CD–ROM submitted. 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Notices 5371 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center—Public Reading 

Room, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334; 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Superfund docket is (202) 566–0276. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603–8852, 

e-mail: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Site 

Assessment and Remedy Decisions 

Branch, Assessment and Remediation 

Division, Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology 

Innovation (Mail Code 5204P), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is 

considering adding a vapor intrusion 

component as a new mechanism to the 

HRS that would enable vapor intrusion 

contamination to be included in an HRS 

evaluation. Presented below is 

background information on the HRS, its 

statutory basis, and further detail 

regarding this potential addition and 

related topics on which EPA is 

requesting public comment. 

The Agency will conduct public 

outreach activities, including facilitating 

public listening sessions, providing 

public information documents, and 

establishing a Web site with more 

information regarding this potential 

addition to the HRS. The Agency will 

consider the information gathered from 

this Notice, listening sessions, and other 

sources before making a decision on 

whether to issue a proposed rulemaking 

to add subsurface contaminant intrusion 

to the HRS. The Agency is therefore 

requesting comments only regarding 

this potential addition to the HRS, and 

is not considering changes to the 

remainder of the HRS. 

EPA is currently scheduled to hold 

three listening sessions following 

publication of this Notice to allow 

interested parties to present feedback on 

the potential HRS addition. EPA 

welcomes the input that will be 

provided to the Agency by listening 

session participants. This input will be 

considered by the Agency as it 

determines the need for and nature of 

the addition to the HRS. 

For those stakeholders who cannot 

attend one of the listening sessions, 

comments on the topics described 

below in the Potential Addition of 

Vapor Intrusion Component to the HRS 

subsection of this Notice should be 

submitted in accordance with the 

instructions in the DATES and ADDRESSES

sections of this Notice. Written 

comments will also be accepted at the 

listening sessions. Follow the 

instructions provided on the listening 

session Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

superfund/sites/npl/hrsaddition.htm for 

preparing written comments to be 

submitted at one of the listening 

sessions; see also the ADDRESSES section 

of this Notice. 

In a separate effort, EPA is also 

preparing a final guidance document on 

vapor intrusion that will replace the 

2002 Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response (OSWER) Draft 

Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor 

Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from 

Groundwater and Soils (Subsurface 

Vapor Intrusion Guidance). The 

guidance document is not directly 

related to the potential addition of a 

vapor intrusion component to the HRS 

and more information about this effort 

will be provided in a future Federal 

Register Notice. More information can 

be found on EPA’s vapor intrusion Web 

site at http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ 

vaporintrusion/. 

Background 

Vapor Intrusion 

When hazardous substances, 

pollutants or contaminants are spilled 

on the ground or otherwise migrate to 

the subsurface, they can move in the 

subsurface environment and eventually 

enter buildings as a gas or vapor, or 

even as a liquid in some cases. Dry 

cleaning solvents and industrial degreasers are products that contain 

hazardous substances that when 

released to the environment, can 

migrate into the soil and subsurface 

environment, enter buildings by seeping 

through cracks in basements, 

foundations, sewer lines and other 

openings and ultimately result in 

human exposures. Vapor intrusion is of 

particular concern because 

concentrations of vapors can rise to a 

point where the health of residents or 

workers in those buildings could be at 

risk. Intrusion of contaminants in a nonvapor state may also be a pathway of 

concern because of the potential for 

human exposure to the liquids, the 

resulting precipitates, or associated 

vapors. 

Statutory Basis 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601, et seq. (‘‘CERCLA 

or ‘‘the Act’’) in response to the dangers 

posed by uncontrolled releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants. Section 105(a)(8)(A) of 

CERCLA required that the National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP) include criteria 

for determining priorities among 

releases or threatened releases for the 

purpose of taking remedial or removal 

action. Criteria were to be based upon 

relative risk or danger, taking into 

account the population at risk, the 

hazardous potential of the substances at 

a facility, the potential for 

contamination of drinking water 

supplies, direct human contact, 

destruction of sensitive ecosystems, and 

other appropriate factors. Section 

105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA requires that the 

statutory criteria described in section 

105(a)(8)(A) be used to prepare a list of 

national priorities among the known 

releases, or threatened releases 

throughout the United States, and that 

at least 400 sites be designated for 

priority. The list, which is Appendix B 

of the NCP, is the National Priorities 

List (NPL). 

To implement CERCLA, EPA 

promulgated the revised NCP, 40 CFR 

Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180) 

pursuant to section 105 of CERCLA and 

Executive Order 12316 (48 FR 42237 

August 20, 1981). The NCP, further 

revised by EPA on September 16, 1985 

(50 FR 37624) and November 20, 1985 

(50 FR 47912), sets forth the guidelines 

and procedures needed to respond to 

releases and threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants under CERCLA. The 

Agency developed the Hazard Ranking 

System (‘‘HRS’’) to implement Section 

105(a)(8)(A). The HRS was codified as 

Appendix A of the NCP. The HRS is the 

primary mechanism EPA uses to 

evaluate a site for placement on the 

NPL. 

CERCLA was amended by the 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) in 1986. 

This amendment required the HRS to be 

revised to more accurately assess the 

relative degree of risk to human health 

and the environment posed by sites and 

facilities subject to review. Revisions to 

the HRS were proposed in 1988 (53 FR 

51962) and promulgated in 1990 (55 FR 

51532). The revisions changed the way 

EPA evaluates potential threats to 

human health and the environment 

from hazardous waste sites, as well as 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
5372 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Notices 

made the HRS more accurate in 

assessing relative risk. The revisions 

included the addition of the human 

food chain and recreation threats to the 

surface water pathway and the addition 

of a new exposure pathway (i.e., soil 

exposure pathway). CERCLA called for 

the establishment of both the NPL and 

the HRS. 

National Priorities List 

CERCLA established in Appendix B of 

the NCP, the NPL, which is also 

commonly known as the Superfund 

List. The NPL is a list of contaminated 

sites identified to have known releases 

or threatened releases of hazardous 

substances, pollutants, or contaminants 

throughout the United States and its 

territories. The NPL is intended 

primarily to guide EPA in determining 

which sites warrant further 

investigation. A site can be placed on 

the NPL via three methods (see 40 CFR 

300.425(c) of the NCP for further 

information): 

• Achieving a score of 28.50 or 

greater under the HRS; 

• Designating by a State or Territory 

as its top priority for listing on the NPL 

(regardless of its HRS score); or 

• Using the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR) listing mechanism (see 40 

CFR.300.66(b)(4) of the NCP for further 

information). 

Rationale for Adding Vapor Intrusion to 

the Hazard Ranking System 

In a May 2010 report (EPA’s 

Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing 

Sites Exceed Current Funding Levels, 

and More Sites are Expected to Be 

Added to the National Priorities List, 

GAO Report to Congressional 

Requesters, GAO–10–380, May 2010), 

the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) concluded that if vapor intrusion 

sites are not assessed and, if needed, 

listed on the NPL, there is the potential 

that contaminated sites with 

unacceptable human exposure will not 

be acted upon. GAO recommended that 

the EPA Administrator determine the 

extent to which EPA will consider vapor 

intrusion in listing NPL sites and how 

this will affect the number of NPL sites 

listed in the future. 

Many sites on the NPL that have 

subsurface contaminant intrusion 

problems were placed on the NPL by 

evaluation of pathways other than a 

contaminant intrusion pathway. There 

are other contaminated sites, however, 

that did not qualify for placement on the 

NPL under the current HRS. However, 

these sites may qualify for placement on 

the NPL if the threat from vapor 

intrusion was included in the HRS. A 

new HRS mechanism would enable EPA 

to identify situations in which 

individuals are exposed or potentially 

exposed to vapor or other contaminant 

intrusion in dwellings, work places, or 

other structures or enclosures. 

Hazard Ranking System 

The HRS is a screening tool used by 

EPA to assess the relative threat that 

sites with actual or potential 

contaminant releases pose to human 

health or the environment. The HRS is 

the primary mechanism EPA uses to 

place a site on the NPL. (As noted 

earlier, there are two other mechanisms 

that can be used to place sites on the 

NPL.) The sites on the NPL are then 

further investigated to determine the 

extent of the threat and whether cleanup 

of the site under EPA’s Superfund 

Remedial program is warranted. The 

HRS is a numerically based screening 

system that uses information from 

initial, limited investigations that can be 

collected relatively quickly and 

inexpensively, thus allowing most 

Superfund resources to be directed to 

remedial actions at sites on the NPL. 

The HRS does not provide a risk 

assessment of a specific site, but serves 

as a screening level indicator of the 

highest priority hazardous releases or 

potential releases. 

The HRS score is currently based on 

an evaluation of up to four separate 

pathways: ground water migration, soil 

exposure, surface water migration, and 

air migration. Pathways are routes by 

which exposure to contaminant releases 

by human or sensitive environments can 

occur. 

1. The ground water migration 

pathway evaluates the likelihood that 

hazardous substances will travel 

through the ground below and 

contaminate aquifers and drinking water 

wells that draw on those aquifers. The 

groundwater pathway does not consider 

the potential risk of exposure to vapor 

intrusion from contaminated aquifers. 

2. The surface water migration 

pathway evaluates the likelihood that 

hazardous substances can enter surface 

water and affect people or the 

environment. Threats to humans from 

this pathway include drinking water, 

the human food chain (i.e., 

contaminants build up in the aquatic 

organisms that humans in turn 

consume), and sensitive environments. 

3. The soil exposure pathway 

evaluates the potential threats to 

humans and terrestrial environments 

posed by direct, physical contact with 

hazardous substances or contaminated 

soil. This pathway includes threats to 

those living on property with hazardous 

substances or soils contaminated with 

hazardous substances, and those living 

nearby with access to the property. 

4. Finally, the air migration pathway 

evaluates the likelihood of release of 

hazardous substances into the 

atmosphere and how many people and 

sensitive environments could be 

exposed to hazardous substances carried 

in the air, including gases and 

particulates. The air migration pathway 

does not consider indoor air 

contamination. 

The scoring system for each pathway 

is based on a number of individual 

factors associated with risk-related 

conditions at the site. These factors are 

grouped into three categories: 

1. Likelihood of exposure (i.e., 

likelihood that a site has released or has 

the potential to release hazardous 

substances into the environment). 

2. Waste characteristics (i.e., inherent 

toxicity, mobility of the substances and 

the quantity of the hazardous substances 

that has been released). 

3. Targets (i.e., people or sensitive 

environments actually or potentially 

exposed to the release). 

The HRS site score, which ranges 

from 0 to 100, is obtained by combining 

the pathway scores. A site may be 

scored for one or more of the pathways 

depending on the nature of the release. 

Any site scoring 28.50 or greater is 

eligible for placement on the NPL. As 

noted previously, the HRS score does 

not represent a specified level of risk, 

but is a cutoff point that serves as a 

screening-level indicator of the highest 

priority hazardous releases or potential 

releases based on the criteria identified 

in SARA. 

Potential Addition of Vapor Intrusion 

Component to the HRS 

Consistent with CERCLA Section 105 

and SARA, the Agency regards it 

appropriate to consider amending or 

adding to the HRS when such 

amendments would identify sites of the 

highest priority for evaluation. EPA is 

considering the potential enhancement 

of the HRS by including a vapor 

intrusion component that address issues 

related to the intrusion of hazardous 

substances, pollutants, and 

contaminants into structures (e.g., 

homes, offices, schools, manufacturing 

facilities). To comprehensively explore, 

and if determined appropriate, identify 

approaches for adding the threat posed 

by contaminant vapor intrusion into 

occupied structures to the HRS, EPA is 

beginning the process of soliciting 

stakeholder input. To determine 

whether to move forward with this 

addition, and if so, to determine a range 

of potential approaches, EPA is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 20 / Monday, January 31, 2011 / Notices 5373 

soliciting input on the topics described 

below. 

1. The level and extent of vapor 

intrusion contamination that would 

warrant evaluation for placement on the 

NPL, as well as the identification of 

screening level information sufficient to 

perform this evaluation. 

2. Methods for incorporating vapor 

intrusion into the HRS while, to the 

extent possible, maintaining the 

structure of the other pathways in the 

current HRS and retaining that same 

structure throughout the new 

mechanism for vapor intrusion (i.e., 

likelihood of release, waste 

characteristics, and targets). These 

methods could include the addition of 

vapor intrusion as a migration pathway 

(e.g., groundwater), or part of an 

exposure pathway (e.g., threat within a 

direct exposure pathway along with 

soil). 

3. Consideration of the importance of 

evaluating the potential threat to 

populations not demonstrated to be 

exposed to contaminant intrusion. 

4. The identification of sampling 

procedures available and practical to 

detect the presence of contamination 

due to vapor intrusion. 

5. The availability of screening 

sampling strategies that can adequately 

compensate for the variability in vapor 

intrusion rates under different climatic 

and seasonal conditions. 

6. Identification of analytical methods 

that are sufficiently precise and accurate 

to demonstrate a significant increase in 

contaminant levels from vapor 

intrusion. 

7. The importance of the threat posed 

by exposure to contaminant vapor 

intrusion via inhalation, dermal contact 

with the vapors or condensate on 

surfaces, and ingestion. 

8. The identification of what 

environmental factors (e.g., porosity of 

soil, presence of a contaminated aquifer, 

climate) and structural and lifestyle 

factors (e.g., houses with basements) 

should appropriately be considered in 

determining whether a site warrants 

sampling for contaminant vapor 

intrusion. 

9. In addition to residences, schools 

and other occupied structures, the 

identification of structures in which 

contaminant vapor intrusion could 

result in a significant threat to human 

health (e.g., community recreation 

centers, cultural centers, museums, 

athletic facilities). 

10. The possible need to consider not 

only contaminant vapor intrusion, but 

also intrusion of contaminants in solid 

(i.e., particulates) and liquid forms. 

In addition to these topics, EPA also 

solicits input on community outreach 

methods that would be most effective in 

gathering and disseminating 

information regarding this potential 

addition to the HRS. To further support 

this effort, EPA requests public input on 

the identification of possible vapor 

intrusion sites. This information will be 

used for informational purposes only. 

EPA will consider all public input 

when evaluating whether changes to the 

HRS are appropriate, and whether to 

issue a proposed amendment to the 

HRS. 

Listening Sessions 

The first listening session will be held 

in Arlington, VA on February 24, 2011. 

Specific details of the listening sessions, 

including dates and locations for the 

other two sessions, and instructions for 

those wishing to present oral comments 

will be posted at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

superfund/sites/npl/hrsaddition.htm. At 

this site, users will also be able to sign 

up for a mailing list that will be used 

to distribute logistical information on 

these listening sessions. Registration is 

not required to attend a listening session 

with the following exceptions. 

Due to space limitations, parties 

interested in presenting oral comments 

at the Arlington, VA listening session 

only, must register for that session. 

Registration must be completed at least 

3 calendar days prior to the session. 

Details for registration will be posted on 

the Web at http://www.epa.gov/ 

superfund/sites/npl/hrsaddition.htm. If 

no speakers have registered by 2 

calendar days prior to this listening 

session, it will be cancelled and EPA 

will notify those registered of the 

cancellation. The Agency will also post 

on its Web site that the listening session 

has been cancelled. 

In addition to attending in person, 

participation in the Arlington, VA 

listening session will be available via a 

teleconference. Those wishing to attend 

via teleconference must register as 

described above. EPA will provide the 

teleconference information to registrants 

via e-mail notification in advance of the 

session. 

The Arlington, VA listening session 

will be held at EPA’s Potomac Yard 

office located at: 2777 Crystal Drive, 

Arlington, VA 22202. The listening 

session will begin at 9 a.m. and end at 

5 p.m. The Arlington, VA listening 

session may be webcast. Please refer to 

the Superfund ‘‘Addition of Vapor 

Intrusion to HRS’’ Web Site, http:// 

www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/ 

hrsaddition.htm for information on how 

to access the webcast. Please note that 

the webcast is a supplementary public 

process provided only for convenience. 

If difficulties arise resulting in 

webcasting outages, the meeting will 

continue as planned. 

In general, each oral comment at 

listening sessions should be limited to 

no more than 15 minutes in length. If, 

however, there are more individuals 

who wish to present comments than the 

allotted time for the listening session 

allows, an announcement will be made 

at the beginning of the listening session 

that the time limit has been adjusted to 

allow for the presentation of more 

comments. 

Dated: January 25, 2011. 

Mathy Stanislaus, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1934 Filed 1–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE U.S. 

[Public Notice 2011–0010] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Comment Request 

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S. 

ACTION: Submission for OMB Review 

and Comments Request. 

Form Title: Notice of Claim and Proof 

of Loss, Medium Term Guarantee. 

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of 

the United States (‘‘Ex-Im Bank’’) is the 

official export credit agency of the 

United States. Its mission is to create 

and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. 

exports through direct loans, guarantees, 

insurance and working capital credits. 

By neutralizing the effect of export 

credit support offered by foreign 

governments and by absorbing credit 

risks that the private sector will not 

accept, Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. 

exporters to compete fairly in foreign 

markets on the basis of price and 

product. Under the Medium Term 

Guarantee Program, Ex-Im Bank 

provides guarantees of principal and 

interest on floating or fixed-rate loans by 

eligible lenders to credit worthy buyers 

of US goods and services. The guarantee 

covers the repayment risks on the 

foreign buyer’s debt obligations. Ex-Im 

Bank guarantees that, in the event of a 

payment default by the borrower, it will 

repay the lender the outstanding 

principal and interest on the loan. 

In the event that a borrower defaults 

on a transaction guaranteed by Ex-Im 

Bank the guaranteed lender may seek 

payment by the submission of a claim. 

This collection of information is 

necessary, pursuant to 12 USC 635(a)(1), 

to determine if such claim complies 

with the terms and conditions of the 

relevant guarantee agreement. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES