        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 040610180-6065-02; I.D. 030806A]
        RIN 0648-AR09
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Recordkeeping and Reporting; Tagged Pacific Halibut and Tagged Sablefish

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to amend regulations for excluding tagged halibut and tagged sablefish catches from deduction from fishermen's Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) and from Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) accounts. This action is necessary to ensure that only halibut and sablefish that are tagged with an external research tag are excluded from IFQ deduction, and to extend the same exclusion to halibut and sablefish harvested under the CDQ Program, which allocates specific harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen and eligible western Alaska communities. This action is intended to improve administration of the IFQ and CDQ Programs, to enhance collection of scientific data from external tags, and to further the goals and objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI), the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMPs), and the halibut management program.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received by April 28, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Send written comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Records Officer. Comments may be submitted by:
          • Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
          • E-mail: tagged-halibut-0648-AR09@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: Tagged Halibut RIN 0648 AR09. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
          • Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 907-586-7557.
          • Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

          Copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) and Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action are available from NMFS at the above address or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at www.fakr.noaa.gov.

          Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS at the addresses above and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Becky Carls, 907-586-7228 or becky.carls@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI and the Gulf of Alaska are managed by NMFS under the FMPs for these areas. The FMPs were prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the FMPs appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
        Management of the Pacific halibut fisheries in and off Alaska is governed by an international agreement between Canada and the United States. This agreement, entitled the “Convention Between the United States of America and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea” (Convention), was signed at Ottawa, Canada, on March 2, 1953, and was amended by the “Protocol Amending the Convention,” signed at Washington, D.C., March 29, 1979. The Convention is implemented in the United States by the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery in Alaska is managed under an IFQ Program, as is the fixed gear sablefish fishery. The IFQ Program is a limited access management system. Both species are also a part of the annual apportionment under the CDQ Program. These programs are codified at 50 CFR part 679.

        The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) develops halibut fishery management regulations pursuant to the Convention and submits those regulations to the U.S. Secretary of State for approval. NMFS publishes approved IPHC regulations in the Federal Register as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. NMFS published the IPHC's current annual management measures on February 25, 2005, at 70 FR 9242. The Halibut Act also authorizes the Council to develop Pacific halibut fishery regulations in and off Alaska that are in addition to, but not in conflict with, the approved IPHC regulations (Halibut Act, section 773c(c)). Regulations developed by the Council pursuant to the Halibut Act are implemented only with the approval of the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (Secretary).
        Background
        IFQ and CDQ Programs

        In December 1991, the Council adopted a limited access system for managing the Pacific halibut and sablefish fixed gear fisheries in and off Alaska. The Council designed the IFQ and CDQ Programs to allocate specific harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen and eligible western Alaska communities to resolve management and conservation problems associated with “open access” fishery management, and to promote the development of fishery-based economic opportunities in western Alaska. Acting on behalf of the Secretary, NMFS initially implemented the IFQ Program and CDQ halibut and sablefish programs through regulations published in the Federal Register on November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375), and fully implemented beginning in March 1995.
        NMFS and the State of Alaska jointly manage the CDQ Program that was adopted by the Council in 1991 for halibut, fixed gear sablefish, and pollock in the BSAI. The CDQ Program for pollock was implemented beginning in 1992, and for halibut and fixed gear sablefish in 1995. The CDQ Program has expanded several times and now includes allocations of all FMP groundfish and crab species, and allocations for bycatch of prohibited species. Currently, 65 communities, representing about 27,000 western Alaska residents, are eligible to participate in the CDQ Program. These communities are located within 50 nautical miles of the Bering Sea coast and are predominantly populated by Alaska Natives. The eligible communities formed six non-profit corporations, known as CDQ groups, to manage and administer allocations, investments, and economic development projects.
        Tagged Halibut
        The IPHC tags Pacific halibut with external research tags to obtain general information on their life history. Tagging information also is used to improve the estimates of halibut incidental catch mortality rates or to evaluate the survival of halibut released by longliners that use the prescribed “careful release techniques” (i.e., careful shaking, gangion cutting, and hook straightening). Over the years, the IPHC has used several types of external research tags, including spaghetti-wire tags, metal- or plastic-tipped dart tags, and electronic Pop-up Satellite-transmitting Archival Tags.
        In 2003, the IPHC also began using internal tags called Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags, which are inserted into the heads of the fish. These PIT tags cannot be identified from any external marking and cannot be recovered by fishermen. Only shoreside scan samplers using special electronic equipment can locate the PIT tags after the fish are landed.
        Tagged Sablefish
        NMFS has been tagging and releasing sablefish in waters adjacent to Alaska since 1972 under the Sablefish Tag Program. Each year, NMFS catches thousands of fish in the course of NMFS surveys. NMFS weighs and measures the fish, determines their sex, and tags them before releasing them. Fishermen and seafood processors subsequently find the tagged fish. Since 1972, about 300,000 tagged sablefish have been released, of which nearly 26,000 have been recovered. Additionally, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has used PIT tags for sablefish studies off Alaska.
        Sablefish tagging supports estimates of important biological parameters such as fishing and natural mortality, growth, and migration of fish among management areas. These parameters are incorporated into stock assessment models that are used to recommend harvest levels. Information derived from tagging results in stock assessments that enhance the fishery management process and decrease costs associated with under- and over-harvest of groundfish resources. The common types of external tags used for sablefish include plastic T-bar tags, and tags alerting fishermen to the presence of surgically implanted electronic tags in particular fish.
        Need for Action
        The purposes of this action are: (1) To eliminate an inconsistency between Federal and IPHC regulations, and (2) to include the CDQ Program in the exemption from deduction of halibut and sablefish tagged with external research tags.
        IPHC regulations at Section 21(3) require externally tagged halibut and sablefish harvested in commercial fisheries to count against Individual Vessel Quotas (used in Canada), CDQs, IFQs, or daily bag or possession limits “unless otherwise exempted by state, provincial, or federal regulations.” Federal regulations at 50 CFR 679.40(g) exempt any tagged halibut and sablefish landed in Federal commercial IFQ fisheries from counting against a person's IFQ. The regulatory language currently included in the Federal exemption is inconsistent with that in the IPHC regulations because it does not specifically identify “external” tags for halibut. This Federal regulatory text was written when only external tags were used on Pacific halibut and sablefish. Now, various types of internal and external tags are used to identify fish for scientific purposes. The proposed action would amend Federal regulations so only halibut and sablefish that are “externally” tagged may be excluded from quota deduction.
        The exemption from quota deduction for tagged fish currently provided in Federal regulations for IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish does not extend to CDQ halibut and CDQ sablefish. Halibut CDQ and sablefish CDQ are allocated to Western Alaska CDQ groups as fixed percentages of the annual total allowable catch of halibut and of sablefish. IFQ holders and CDQ groups operating in the Western Alaska CDQ region target essentially the same stock of fish and either may harvest externally tagged fish. However, CDQ groups do not currently receive the incentive of a deduction exemption for externally tagged fish from CDQ limits. Thus, to encourage recovery of scientific information used to evaluate and manage the halibut and sablefish fisheries, the exemptions from deduction of harvested halibut and sablefish with attached external research tags would be extended to CDQ catches.

        This action will improve governmental processes. Externally tagged halibut and sablefish are not counted against a fisherman's IFQ allocation if they are reported when landed. This exemption from quota deduction is intended to give fishermen an incentive to take the time to report tagging information that is important to the management of the halibut and sablefish fisheries. The original tag exemption regulations were prepared prior to the introduction of internal tags. Because fishermen are unaware of the tags' presence prior to discovery by scan samplers, this incentive does not apply to internally tagged fish. This regulatory change would eliminate the potential for ambiguity and confusion over the exemption status of fish. Extension of the exemption to the CDQ fisheries will provide an incentive for fishermen operating in these programs to return tags.
        Proposed Changes to Regulations
        NMFS proposes to amend the current regulations on tagging at 50 CFR 679.40(g) by removing “Tagged” and adding in its place “External research tags for.” This action would specify that only halibut or sablefish bearing an external research tag issued by any state, Federal, or international agency, are excluded from program quota deduction.
        In section 679.40 paragraph (g)(1), the phrase “a research tag” would be revised to read “an external research tag” to ensure that only halibut and sablefish bearing external research tags are exempt from quota deduction.

        Paragraph (g)(1)(i) would be amended by removing “50 CFR 300.18” and adding in its place “50 CFR 300.62 and 50 CFR part 679.” The reference to “50 CFR 300.18” is an artifact from when the IPHC regulations for annual management measures were codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). NMFS publishes the IPHC regulations as annual management measures in the Federal Register, but now does not codify them in the CFR.
        Paragraph (g)(1)(ii) would be revised to require fishermen to comply with all sablefish regulations at 50 CFR part 679 in addition to turning in a tagged sablefish.
        Paragraph (g)(2) would be amended by removing “Tagged halibut and sablefish” and adding in its place “Halibut and sablefish bearing an external research tag from any state, Federal, or international agency.” In addition a reference to 50 CFR 679.5(l) would be added. Section 679.5 paragraph (l) describes the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the IFQ Program. Language specifying which quotas would not be debited by harvest of externally tagged halibut or sablefish would be broken out into two separate paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii). The first would address halibut IFQ and sablefish IFQ, while the second would address halibut CDQ and sablefish CDQ.
        Additional language would be added to § 679.40(g)(1) and (g)(2) to improve the clarity of the regulations.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the Halibut Act and the FMPs, and preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, the reasons why it is being considered, a statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, this action are contained in the preamble and are not repeated here. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        The entities that would be directly regulated by this action are the Western Alaska CDQ groups that annually receive halibut and sablefish quota, and those entities harvesting halibut and/or sablefish under the IFQ and CDQ Programs. There were six Western Alaska CDQ groups in 2004. Each of these groups is organized as a not-for-profit entity, and none is dominant in its field, thus, each group is considered to be a directly regulated small entity.
        In 2004, 1,524 unique vessels harvested halibut and/or sablefish. A total of 1,304 unique vessels were used to harvest IFQ halibut, 199 to harvest CDQ halibut, and 1,489 to harvest IFQ halibut and/or CDQ halibut (i.e., 14 harvested both). A total of 396 unique vessels were used to harvest IFQ sablefish, 18 to harvest CDQ sablefish, and 403 to harvest IFQ and/or CDQ sablefish (i.e. 11 harvested both). Contractual arrangements, ownership information, and any resulting affiliations between such parties are proprietary. Though affiliation status for these entities is not well known, vessel operations are believed to be small entities and will be treated as such for the purposes of this action.
        This action would amend regulations to provide that only halibut or sablefish that are externally tagged with research tags would be exempt from deduction from IFQ or CDQ accounts. The exemption is believed to provide an economic incentive for fishermen to take the additional time to notify fishery managers about the tags and about the tagged fish they encounter during their fishing operations. This information is important for the conservation and management of the halibut and sablefish fisheries.
        The benefits of this action are as follows: (1) Regulatory consistency leading to the potential for fewer disagreements and lower transactions costs during landings, (2) potentially improved fisheries management via improved collection of scientific data, and (3) a potential, although very slight, economic benefit to CDQ groups, which recover and turn in external halibut and/or sablefish research tags, accruing from the exemption from quota deduction. The benefits to the CDQ groups are expected to be small due to the overall low numbers of halibut and sablefish external tag returns.
        This regulation appears to impose no costs on directly regulated small entities. IFQ fishermen currently voluntarily bear the small burden of collecting and returning tags. Fishermen in the IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish fisheries are accustomed to IFQ exemptions for delivery of externally tagged fish, and would continue to enjoy this benefit. CDQ groups harvesting CDQ halibut and CDQ sablefish would, under the proposed action, also benefit from this exemption. CDQ groups would not be required to return tags, so no costs would be imposed on them. Overall, this action would have no known adverse impacts on the profitability or competitiveness of small regulated entities.
        This proposed regulation does not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on the directly regulated small entities. Affected small entities may choose to ignore external research tags and are not under any obligation to report them. However, if affected small entities wish to benefit from this regulation, they must report the presence of external research tags to IPHC port samplers, to the IPHC directly, to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, or to NMFS as appropriate.
        This proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules.
        The no action alternative would have no direct impact on small entities. Under this alternative the regulations would not be changed to eliminate the inconsistency between IPHC and Federal regulations, nor would CDQ groups be eligible for exemptions from quota deduction for halibut or sablefish tagged with external tags issued by any state, Federal, or international agency. Therefore, the no action alternative would not meet the objectives of this action to eliminate inconsistency in the regulations and to extend the exemption from quota deduction to the CDQ groups.

        An alternative that would leave the CDQ program fisheries out of the proposed action was considered but was rejected. This alternative would not encourage all fishermen that harvest halibut and sablefish in quota fisheries to return tagged fish. Moreover, this alternative would provide less benefit to CDQ groups, which are small entities under SBA guidelines. This alternative, therefore, would not meet the objectives of this action.

        This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which has been approved by OMB under control number 0648-0276. Public reporting burden for tag information is estimated to average five minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.
        Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

          Dated: March 24, 2006.
          James W. Balsiger,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1540(f); 1801 et seq; 1851 note; 3631 et seq.

        2. In § 679.40, paragraph (g) is revised to read as follows:

          § 679.40
          Sablefish and halibut QS.

          (g) External research tags for halibut and sablefish. (1) Nothing contained in this part shall prohibit any person at any time from retaining and landing a Pacific halibut or sablefish that bears at the time of capture an external research tag from any state, Federal, or international agency, provided that the halibut or sablefish is one of the following:
          (i) A Pacific halibut landed pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62 and 50 CFR part 679; or
          (ii) A sablefish landed in accordance with the Tagged Groundfish Research Program, and in compliance with all sablefish requirements of 50 CFR part 679.
          (2) Halibut and sablefish bearing an external research tag from any state, Federal, or international agency, landed pursuant to paragraphs (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this section, and in accordance with § 679.5(l), shall be excluded from IFQ or CDQ deduction as follows:
          (i) The fish shall not be calculated as part of a person's IFQ harvest of halibut or sablefish and shall not be debited against a person's halibut IFQ or a person's sablefish IFQ; or
          (ii) The fish shall not be calculated as part of the CDQ harvest of halibut or sablefish and shall not be debited against a CDQ group's halibut CDQ or a CDQ group's sablefish CDQ.

      [FR Doc. E6-4576 Filed 3-28-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [FRL-7872-1]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Notice of Intent to Delete the Syosset Landfill Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2 Office, announces its intent to delete the Syosset Landfill Superfund Site (Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this action.
          The Syosset Landfill Superfund Site is located in the Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County, New York. The NPL is appendix B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. EPA and New York State, through the Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), have determined that all appropriate response actions have been completed and no further response actions are required. In addition, EPA and the NYSDEC have determined that the Site poses no significant threat to public health or the environment.

          DATES:
          Comments concerning this proposed action, deletion of a site from the NPL, must be received by March 17, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should be submitted to: Sherrel D. Henry, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
          Information Repositories: Comprehensive information on the Site is available for viewing and copying by appointment only at the Site information repository located at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, Room 1828, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-4308.

            Hours: Monday through Friday: 9 a.m. through 5 p.m.
          Information for the Site is also available for viewing at the Site Administrative Record Repositories located at: Syosset Public Library, 225 South Oyster Bay Road, Syosset, New York 11791, Tel. (516) 921-7161.

            Hours: Monday through Thursday: 9 a.m. through 9 p.m., Friday: 10 a.m. through 9 p.m., Saturday: 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. and Sunday: 12 noon through 5 p.m., and Oyster Bay Town Hall, 54 Audrey Avenue, Oyster Bay, New York 11771, Tel. (516) 624-6100.

            Hours: Monday through Friday: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Ms. Henry at the address provided above, by telephone at (212) 637-4273, by electronic mail at Henry.Sherrel@epa.gov, or by FAX at (212) 637-3966.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Table of Contents
          I. Introduction
          II. NPL Deletion Criteria
          III. Deletion Procedures
          IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

        I. Introduction
        EPA, Region 2, announces its intent to delete the Syosset Landfill Superfund Site (Site) from the NPL. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substances Superfund Response Trust Fund (Fund). As described in § 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions, if conditions at the site warrant such action.

        EPA will accept comments concerning the deletion of the Site from the NPL for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
        Section II explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses how the Site meets the NPL deletion criteria.
        II. NPL Deletion Criteria
        Section 300.425 (e) of the NCP provides that sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making this determination, EPA, in consultation with the State, will consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:
        (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; or,

        (ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or,

        (iii) A remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or to the environment and, therefore, taking remedial measures is not appropriate.
        III. Deletion Procedures
        The following procedures apply to the deletion of this site:
        1. EPA, Region 2, issued the Operable Unit One (OU1) Record of Decision (ROD ) for the Site on September 27, 1990 which selected landfill closure as the remedy for the Site.
        2. In March 1996, EPA, Region 2, issued a no further action ROD for Operable Unit 2 (OU2) which addressed ground water emanating from the landfill property.
        3. Responsible parties implemented the remedy selected in the OU1 ROD as described in a Remedial Action Report dated August 1998. A Five-Year Review dated October 2001 evaluated the remedies implemented at the Site and found them to be protective of human health and the environment. A Final Close Out Report dated September 3, 2004 summarizes the actions and recent monitoring at this Site.
        4. EPA, Region 2, recommends deletion and has prepared the relevant documents.
        5. The State of New York, through the NYSDEC, concurred with the proposed deletion of the Site in a letter dated November 29, 2004.

        6. Concurrent with this national Notice of Intent to Delete, a notice has been published in a local newspaper, and appropriate notice has been given to federal, state and local officials announcing a 30-day public comment period which starts on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register and a newspaper of record.
        7. The EPA has placed relevant site documents in the Site information repositories identified above.
        8. Upon completion of the thirty- (30-) day public comment period, EPA will evaluate all comments received before issuing a final decision on deletion. The EPA, Region 2, will prepare a Responsiveness Summary, if appropriate, which will address significant comments received during the public comment period. The Responsiveness Summary will be made available to the public at the information repositories.

        If, after consideration of the comments it receives, EPA decides to proceed with the deletion, EPA will place a Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Deletion does not occur until the final Notice of Deletion is published in the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect deletions in the next final update following the final Notice publication.
        Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any person's rights or obligations. Deletion from the NPL does not alter EPA's right to take appropriate enforcement actions. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist Agency management.
        IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
        The following summary provides a brief description and history of the Syosset Landfill Superfund Site and provides the Agency's rationale for recommending deletion of the Site from the NPL and EPA's finding that the criteria in 40 CFR 300.425(e) are satisfied.
        The Syosset Landfill is owned by the Town of Oyster Bay, which operated it from approximately 1933 to 1975. Between 1933 and about 1967, no restrictions were imposed on the types of wastes accepted at the landfill. Waste types disposed at the landfill included: commercial, industrial, residential, demolition, agricultural, sludge material and ash. Studies of the landfill found that it contains heavy metals, solvents, organics, oils, plasticizers, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) among other contaminants.
        The Syosset Landfill was closed on January 27, 1975 because of a suspected groundwater pollution problem. A January 1983 report summarizing the results of a study performed for the Nassau County Department of Health (NCDOH) concluded that the groundwater quality was being impacted by landfill leachate. Elevated heavy metal concentrations including arsenic, cadmium, chromium and lead were detected at levels exceeding New York State Primary Drinking Water Standards. One public drinking water well which is downgradient of the Site was closed due to taste and odor problems. The Site was placed on the Superfund NPL in September 1983.
        On June 19, 1986, EPA and the Town entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (Index No. II CERCLA-60203). The Order required the Town to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Site with provisions for performing off-site investigations. EPA designated the on-property effort as Operable Unit 1 (OU1) and the off-site work as Operable Unit 2 (OU2). The Town later entered into a Consent Decree to conduct the OU1 remedial design, remedial construction, operation, maintenance, and the monitoring for the Site. EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1 on September 27, 1990, selecting the remedy for the Site as follows.
        • Implementing New York State landfill closure requirements as specified in 6 NYCRR Part 360, solid waste management facilities regulations, which included construction of a geosynthetic membrane cap on the top surface of the landfill;
        • Providing long-term air and groundwater quality monitoring;
        • Monitoring and maintaining the passive gas-venting system installed under a previously implemented response action, including routine inspection and repairs;
        • Establishing institutional controls in the form of deed restrictions on future uses of the landfill;
        • Installing an additional passive gas-venting system, designed so that it can easily be converted to an active system should conversion become necessary; and
        • Maintaining the existing boundary fence around the perimeter of the landfill property to continue to restrict access to the landfill.
        In addition, because leachate indicator chemicals were identified in groundwater underneath and downgradient of the landfill, the ROD also specified that a supplemental remedial investigation be conducted to study the potential off-site impacts of the landfill, designated as OU2.
        On-site construction commenced in November 1994 and was completed in November 1997. EPA conducted a final inspection with NYSDEC and the Town of Oyster Bay on November 5, 1997. In October 1999, EPA issued its approval of the Remedial Action Report. In addition, institutional controls, consisting of recording the Consent Decree and placing restrictive covenants on the real property at the site, have been implemented by the Town of Oyster Bay.

        EPA approved a Post-Closure Monitoring and Maintenance Operations (O&M) Manual in December 2001. The O&M Manual provides for a long-term monitoring program for the cover system, the drainage system, and the groundwater and the gas-monitoring systems. The O&M Manual requires groundwater monitoring at selected wells. The first round of annual sampling was conducted in June 2003. The O&M monitoring results indicate that the remedial system as designed and constructed pursuant to the 1990 OU1 ROD is performing satisfactorily. A RI was performed for OU2 and concluded that the off-property groundwater does not pose a threat to public health or the environment. EPA Region 2, issued a no further action ROD for OU2 in March 1996.
        Hazardous substances remain at the Site above levels that would allow for unlimited use with unrestricted exposure. Pursuant to section 121(c) of CERCLA, EPA will review site remedies no less often than every five years. The EPA, Region 2, conducted a statutory Five-Year Review of the Site in November 2001. The Five-Year Review concluded that the contamination at the Syosset Landfill site is under control and there is no exposure to human or environmental receptors from Site-related contaminants. The next Five-Year Review will be completed by November 2006.
        Public participation activities for this Site have been satisfied as required in CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. As part of the remedy selection process, the public was invited to comment on EPA's proposed remedies. All other documents and information which EPA relied on or considered in recommending this deletion are available for the public to review at the information repositories.
        One of the three criteria for site deletion is when “responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required” (40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(i)). EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New York, through the NYSDEC, believe that this criterion for deletion has been met. Therefore, EPA is proposing deletion of this Site from the NPL.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
          Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water Supply.

          Dated: December 13, 2004.
          George Pavlou,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

      [FR Doc. 05-2709 Filed 2-14-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 544
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0017]
        RIN 2127-AK69
        Insurer Reporting Requirements; List of Insurers Required To File Reports

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document proposes to amend appendices to NHTSA regulations on Insurer Reporting Requirements. The appendices list those passenger motor vehicle insurers that are required to file reports on their motor vehicle theft loss experiences. An insurer included in any of these appendices would be required to file three copies of its report for the 2007 calendar year before October 25, 2010. If the passenger motor vehicle insurers remain listed, they must submit reports by each subsequent October 25. We are proposing to add and remove several insurers from relevant appendices.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted not later than August 20, 2010. Insurers listed in the appendices are required to submit reports on or before October 25, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0017 by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

            Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

            Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to the street address listed above. The Internet access to the docket will be at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, by electronic mail to Carlita.Ballard@dot.gov. Ms. Ballard's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33112, Insurer reports and information, NHTSA requires certain passenger motor vehicle insurers to file an annual report with the agency. Each insurer's report includes information about thefts and recoveries of motor vehicles, the rating rules used by the insurer to establish premiums for comprehensive coverage, the actions taken by the insurer to reduce such premiums, and the actions taken by the insurer to reduce or deter theft. Under the agency's regulation, 49 CFR Part 544, the following insurers are subject to the reporting requirements:
        (1) Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose total premiums account for 1 percent or more of the total premiums of motor vehicle insurance issued within the United States;
        (2) Issuers of motor vehicle insurance policies whose premiums account for 10 percent or more of total premiums written within any one State; and
        (3) Rental and leasing companies with a fleet of 20 or more vehicles not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of motor vehicles, other than any governmental entity.
        Pursuant to its statutory exemption authority, the agency exempted certain passenger motor vehicle insurers from the reporting requirements.
        A. Small Insurers of Passenger Motor Vehicles

        Section 33112(f)(2) provides that the agency shall exempt small insurers of passenger motor vehicles if NHTSA finds that such exemptions will not significantly affect the validity or usefulness of the information in the reports, either nationally or on a State-by-State basis. The term “small insurer” is defined, in Section 33112(f)(1)(A) and (B), as an insurer whose premiums for motor vehicle insurance issued directly or through an affiliate, including pooling arrangements established under State law or regulation for the issuance of motor vehicle insurance, account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States. However, that section also stipulates that if an insurance company satisfies this definition of a “small insurer,” but accounts for 10 percent or more of the total premiums for all motor vehicle insurance issued in a particular State, the insurer must report about its operations in that State.
        In the final rule establishing the insurer reports requirement (52 FR 59; January 2, 1987), 49 CFR Part 544, NHTSA exercised its exemption authority by listing in Appendix A each insurer that must report because it had at least 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums nationally. Listing the insurers subject to reporting, instead of each insurer exempted from reporting because it had less than 1 percent of the premiums nationally, is administratively simpler since the former group is much smaller than the latter. In Appendix B, NHTSA lists those insurers required to report for particular States because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those States. In the January 1987 final rule, the agency stated that it would update Appendices A and B annually. NHTSA updates the appendices based on data voluntarily provided by insurance companies to A.M. Best.1
           A.M. Best publishes in its State/Line Report each spring. The agency uses the data to determine the insurers' market shares nationally and in each State.

            1 A.M. Best Company is a well-recognized source of insurance company ratings and information. 49 U.S.C. 33112(i) authorizes NHTSA to consult with public and private organizations as necessary.

        B. Self-Insured Rental and Leasing Companies

        In addition, upon making certain determinations, NHTSA grants exemptions to self-insurers, i.e., any person who has a fleet of 20 or more motor vehicles (other than any governmental entity) used for rental or lease whose vehicles are not covered by theft insurance policies issued by insurers of passenger motor vehicles, 49 U.S.C. 33112(b)(1) and (f). Under 49 U.S.C. 33112(e)(1) and (2), NHTSA may exempt a self-insurer from reporting, if the agency determines:
        (1) the cost of preparing and furnishing such reports is excessive in relation to the size of the business of the insurer; and 33112(e)(1) and (2),
        (2) the insurer's report will not significantly contribute to carrying out the purposes of Chapter 331.
        In a final rule published June 22, 1990 (55 FR 25606), the agency granted a class exemption to all companies that rent or lease fewer than 50,000 vehicles, because it believed that the largest companies' reports sufficiently represent the theft experience of rental and leasing companies. NHTSA concluded that smaller rental and leasing companies' reports do not significantly contribute to carrying out NHTSA's statutory obligations and that exempting such companies will relieve an unnecessary burden on them. As a result of the June 1990 final rule, the agency added Appendix C, consisting of an annually updated list of the self-insurers subject to Part 544. Following the same approach as in Appendix A, NHTSA included, in Appendix C, each of the self-insurers subject to reporting instead of the self-insurers which are exempted.

        NHTSA updates Appendix C based primarily on information from Automotive Fleet Magazine and Auto Rental News.
          2

            2 Automotive Fleet Magazine and Auto Rental News are publications that provide information on the size of fleets and market share of rental and leasing companies.

        C. When a Listed Insurer Must File a Report
        Under Part 544, as long as an insurer is listed, it must file reports on or before October 25 of each year. Thus, any insurer listed in the appendices must file a report before October 25, and by each succeeding October 25, absent an amendment removing the insurer's name from the appendices.
        II. Proposal
        1. Insurers of Passenger Motor Vehicles
        Appendix A lists insurers that must report because each had 1 percent of the motor vehicle insurance premiums on a national basis. The list was last amended in a final rule published on January 12, 2010 (75 FR 1548). Based on the 2007 calendar year data market shares from A. M. Best, NHTSA proposes to make no change to Appendix A.
        Each of the 19 insurers listed in Appendix A are required to file a report before October 25, 2010, setting forth the information required by Part 544 for each State in which it did business in the 2007 calendar year. As long as these 19 insurers remain listed, they will be required to submit reports by each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.
        Appendix B lists insurers required to report for particular States for calendar year 2007, because each insurer had a 10 percent or greater market share of motor vehicle premiums in those States. Based on the 2007 calendar year data for market shares from A.M. Best, we propose to add Balboa Insurance Group of South Dakota to Appendix B.
        The nine remaining insurers listed in Appendix B are required to report on their calendar year 2007 activities in every State where they had a 10 percent or greater market share. These reports must be filed by October 25, 2010, and set forth the information required by Part 544. As long as these nine insurers remain listed, they would be required to submit reports on or before each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.
        2. Rental and Leasing Companies

        Appendix C lists rental and leasing companies required to file reports. Subsequent to publishing the January 12, 2010 final rule (see 75 FR 1548), the agency was informed by Enterprise Rent-A-Car company (Enterprise), that it purchased Vanguard Car Rental, USA (Vanguard) in August of 2007, and that Vanguard will no longer be reporting as a separate entity because it merged with Enterprise in August of 2009. Specifically, Enterprise stated that all reporting will be performed by its parent company, Enterprise Holdings, Inc. for all three brands, National, Alamo and Enterprise. Therefore, NHTSA proposes to remove Vanguard Car Rental USA from the list of insurers required to meet the reporting requirements.

        Each of the remaining five companies (including franchisees and licensees) listed in Appendix C are required to file reports for calendar year 2007 no later than October 25, 2010, and set forth the information required by Part 544. As long as those five companies remain listed, they would be required to submit reports before each subsequent October 25 for the calendar year ending slightly less than 3 years before.

        III. Regulatory Impacts
        1. Costs and Other Impacts
        This notice has not been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. NHTSA has considered the impact of this proposed rule and determined that the action is not “significant” within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This proposed rule implements the agency's policy of ensuring that all insurance companies that are statutorily eligible for exemption from the insurer reporting requirements are in fact exempted from those requirements. Only those companies that are not statutorily eligible for an exemption are required to file reports.

        NHTSA does not believe that this proposed rule, reflecting current data, affects the impacts described in the final regulatory evaluation prepared for the final rule establishing Part 544 (52 FR 59; January 2, 1987). Accordingly, a separate regulatory evaluation has not been prepared for this rulemaking action. The cost estimates in the 1987 final regulatory evaluation should be adjusted for inflation, using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index for 2009 (see http://www.bls.gov/cpi). The agency estimates that the cost of compliance is $50,000 (1987 dollars) for any insurer added to Appendix A, $20,000 (1987 dollars) for any insurer added to Appendix B, and $5,770 (1987 dollars) for any insurer added to Appendix C. If this proposed rule is made final, for Appendix A, the agency would propose to make no change; for Appendix B, the agency would propose to add one company; and for Appendix C, the agency would propose to remove one company. The agency estimates that the net effect of this proposal, if made final, would be a cost increase of approximately $14,220 (1987 dollars) to insurers as a group.
        Interested persons may wish to examine the 1987 final regulatory evaluation. Copies of that evaluation were placed in Docket No. T86-01; Notice 2. Any interested person may obtain a copy of this evaluation by writing to NHTSA, Technical Reference Division, 1201 New Jersey Avenue, SE., East Building, Ground Floor, Room E12-100, Washington, DC 20590, or by calling (202) 366-2588.
        2. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The information collection requirements in this proposed rule were submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This collection of information is assigned OMB Control Number 2127-0547 (“Insurer Reporting Requirements”). This collection of information is approved for use through April 30, 2012 and the agency will seek to extend the approval afterwards. The existing information collection indicates that the number of respondents for this collection is thirty-three, however, the actual number of respondents fluctuate from year to year. Therefore, because the number of respondents required to report for this final rule does not exceed the number of respondents indicated in the existing information collection, the agency does not believe that an amendment to the existing information collection is necessary.
        3. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        The agency also considered the effects of this rulemaking under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale for the certification is that none of the companies proposed for Appendices A, B, or C are construed to be a small entity within the definition of the RFA. “Small insurer” is defined, in part under 49 U.S.C. 33112, as any insurer whose premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance account for less than 1 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the United States, or any insurer whose premiums within any State account for less than 10 percent of the total premiums for all forms of motor vehicle insurance issued by insurers within the State. This notice would exempt all insurers meeting those criteria. Any insurer too large to meet those criteria is not a small entity. In addition, in this rulemaking, the agency proposes to exempt all “self insured rental and leasing companies” that have fleets of fewer than 50,000 vehicles. Any self-insured rental and leasing company too large to meet that criterion is not a small entity.
        4. Federalism
        This action has been analyzed according to the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined that the proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
        5. Environmental Impacts
        In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, NHTSA has considered the environmental impacts of this proposed rule and determined that it would not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
        6. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
        The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading, at the beginning, of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
        7. Plain Language
        Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions:
        • Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
        • Are the requirements in the proposal clearly stated?
        • Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
        • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
        • Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
        • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
        • What else could we do to make the proposal easier to understand?
        If you have any responses to these questions, you can forward them to me several ways:
        a. Mail: Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., (West Building) Washington, DC 20590;
        b. E-mail: Carlita.Ballard@dot.gov; or
        c. Fax: (202) 493-2990.
        IV. Comments
        Submission of Comments
        1. How can I influence NHTSA's thinking on this proposed rule?
        In developing our rules, NHTSA tries to address the concerns of all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We invite you to provide views on our proposal, new data, a discussion of the effects of this proposal on you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on all aspects of this proposed rule. Your comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:
        • Explain your views and reasoning clearly.

        • Provide solid technical and cost data to support your views.
        • If you estimate potential costs, explain how you derived the estimate.
        • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
        • Offer specific alternatives.
        • Include the name, date, and docket number with your comments.
        2. How do I prepare and submit comments?
        Your comments must be written in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
        Your comments must not exceed 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments concisely. You may attach necessary documents to your comments. We have no limit on the attachments' length.

        Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES.

        Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulation.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
        3. How can I be sure that my comments were received?
        If you wish Docket Management to notify you, upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will mail the postcard.
        4. How do I submit confidential business information?

        If you wish to submit any information under a confidentiality claim, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim as confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter addressing the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
        5. Will the agency consider late comments?

        NHTSA will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider, in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
        6. How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

        You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above, in the same location. You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, log onto the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulation.gov.

        V. Conclusion
        Based on the foregoing, we are proposing to amend Appendices B and C of 49 CFR 544, Insurer Reporting Requirements. We are also amending § 544.5 to revise the example given the recent update to the reporting requirements.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 544
          Crime insurance, Insurance, Insurance companies, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR Part 544 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 544—[AMENDED]
          1. The authority citation for part 544 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 33112; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          2. Paragraph (a) of § 544.5 is revised to read as follows:

            § 544.5
            General requirements for reports.

            (a) Each insurer to which this part applies shall submit a report annually before October 25, beginning on October 25, 1986. This report shall contain the information required by § 544.6 of this part for the calendar year 3 years previous to the year in which the report is filed (e.g., the report due by October 25, 2010, will contain the required information for the 2007 calendar year).

            3. Appendix A to Part 544 is revised to read as follows:
            Appendix A—Insurers of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policies Subject to the Reporting Requirements in Each State in Which They Do Business

              Allstate Insurance Group
              American Family Insurance Group
              American International Group
              Auto Club Enterprise Insurance Group
              Auto-Owners Insurance Group
              Erie Insurance Group
              Berkshire Hathaway/GEICO Corporation Group
              California State Auto Group
              Hartford Insurance Group
              Liberty Mutual Insurance Companies
              Metropolitan Life Auto & Home Group
              Mercury General Group
              Nationwide Group
              Progressive Group
              Safeco Insurance Companies
              State Farm Group
              Travelers Companies
              USAA Group
              Farmers Insurance Group

            4. Appendix B to Part 544 is revised to read as follows:
            Appendix B—Issuers of Motor Vehicle Insurance Policies Subject to the Reporting Requirements Only in Designated States

              Alfa Insurance Group (Alabama)
              Auto Club (Michigan)
              Balboa Insurance Group (South Dakota) 1

                  1 Indicates a newly listed company which must file a report beginning with the report due October 25, 2010.

              Commerce Group, Inc. (Massachusetts)
              Kentucky Farm Bureau Group (Kentucky)
              New Jersey Manufacturers Group (New Jersey)
              Safety Group (Massachusetts)
              Southern Farm Bureau Group (Arkansas, Mississippi)
              Tennessee Farmers Companies (Tennessee)

            5. Appendix C to Part 544 is revised to read as follows:
            Appendix C—Motor Vehicle Rental and Leasing Companies (Including Licensees and Franchisees) Subject to the Reporting Requirements of Part 544

              Cendant Car Rental
              Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group
              Enterprise Holding Inc./Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company 2

              Hertz Rent-A-Car Division (subsidiary of The Hertz Corporation)
              U-Haul International, Inc. (subsidiary of AMERCO)

                  2 Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company acquired ownership of Vanguard Car Rental USA in August 2007.

            Issued on: June 14, 2010.
            Stephen R. Kratzke,
            Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2010-14841 Filed 6-18-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Research and Special Programs Administration
        49 CFR Part 172
        [Docket No. RSPA-01-10292 (HM-206E)]
        RIN 2137-AD50
        Hazardous Materials: Hazardous Waste Manifest Requirements

          AGENCY:
          Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:

          RSPA proposes to revise its regulations on the use of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for shipments of hazardous wastes to parallel some changes proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). RSPA is proposing to require that, if the generator of a hazardous waste prepares an electronic manifest, either a physical copy of the electronic manifest or another document containing the information required for a shipping paper must accompany the hazardous waste in transportation. The intended effect of this proposed rule is to maintain consistency between EPA's and RSPA's requirements.

          DATES:
          Submit comments by October 4, 2001. To the extent practicable, we will consider comments received after this date in making our decision on a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:

          Address your comments to the Dockets Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL 401, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number, RSPA-01-10292 (HM-206E) at the beginning of your comments, and you should submit two copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments are received, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. You may also submit your comments and review all comments by accessing the Docket Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Help and Information” to obtain instructions for filing a document electronically.

          The Dockets Unit is located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building at the U.S. DOT at the above address. You may view public dockets between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from the Federal Register Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: http://www.nara.gov/nara/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's database at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su—docs or the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety at http://rspa.dot.gov/rulemake.htm.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Michael Johnsen, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, telephone (202) 366-8553, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        Under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA; 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq.) and regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 40 CFR Parts 262-264, hazardous wastes are tracked from their producer (generator) to their final disposal sites. The central tracking element of this system is the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (uniform manifest), which accompanies a hazardous waste shipment from its point of origin to its destination. In 42 U.S.C. 6923, RCRA directs EPA to consult with DOT and issue regulations on the transportation of hazardous wastes that are “consistent with” requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180).

        In coordinated rulemakings that followed joint EPA-DOT public hearings, EPA and RSPA issued final rules in 1980 requiring that a manifest accompany each shipment of hazardous waste during transportation. See 45 FR 12272 (Feb. 26, 1980) (EPA), 34560 (May 22, 1980) (RSPA). In 49 CFR 172.205, RSPA provided that the uniform manifest “may be used as the shipping paper required by” the HMR, so long as it contained all the required information. Four years later, EPA and RSPA concurrently amended their regulations to adopt the current uniform manifest form in order to address the problems resulting from “a proliferation of manifests as States decided to develop and print their own forms.” 49 FR 10490 (EPA), 10507 (RSPA) (March 20, 1984). Under the current regulations, a generator may use the uniform manifest form for wastes regulated solely by a State, but a State may not “impose enforcement sanctions on a transporter during transportation of the shipment for failure of the form to include preprinted information or optional State information items.” 40 CFR 271.10(h)(2).

        EPA has recently proposed to revise its uniform manifest regulations (66 FR 28239; May 22, 2001). One of EPA's proposed changes would allow the uniform manifest to be prepared and transmitted electronically from the generator to the disposal facility, rather than requiring it to accompany the shipment. On the electronic manifest, the required signatures would be done electronically, rather than in handwriting on a paper form. In addition, EPA is proposing to: (1) Align the definitions of “bulk packaging” and “non-bulk packaging” in its regulations to be consistent with those definitions in 49 CFR 171.8; (2) provide space on the uniform manifest for information currently required by the HMR on a shipping paper, including an emergency response phone number and the Packing Group of the material; and (3) revise the text of the certification statement by the generator to match the language required in 49 CFR 172.204(a).
        II. Proposed Changes to the HMR
        A uniform manifest that is prepared and transmitted electronically, from the generator to the transporter, the disposal facility, and the monitoring governmental agencies, can provide all the information necessary to track a shipment of hazardous waste. However, an electronic manifest cannot serve the purpose of a shipping paper to alert emergency responders as to the nature and hazards of materials in a transport vehicle or freight container, in the event of an incident during transportation of those materials, when electronic translators or readers may not be available. Accordingly, EPA has proposed that a paper copy of the manifest or other shipping paper must accompany the shipment.
        In order to parallel EPA's proposal for an electronic manifest, RSPA proposes to modify 49 CFR 172.205 to provide that, when an electronic manifest is used, the hazardous waste must be accompanied by a physical shipping paper that can be either (1) a print-out (paper copy) of the electronic manifest or (2) a separate shipping paper that meets all of the shipping paper requirements in 49 CFR, subpart C of part 172. In addition, to prevent confusion by enforcement officials, if an electronic manifest is being used in the transportation of a hazardous waste, the shipping paper or copy of the electronic manifest must indicate on the document that an electronic manifest is being used.
        Because § 172.204(d)(2) allows for a shipping paper to be “signed manually, by typewriter, or by other mechanical means,” no change to the HMR is needed when a paper copy of the electronic manifest is used as the shipping paper accompanying hazardous waste during transportation. The signature of the generator on the electronic manifest, as printed out on a physical copy, would satisfy the requirement in § 172.204(d). Other changes to the uniform manifest proposed by EPA that relate to requirements in the HMR would not require changes in the HMR.
        III. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
        A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

        This NPRM is not considered a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not significant under the Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (44 FR 11034).
        The intent of the changes in this notice is to clarify that shipping paper information must still accompany every shipment of hazardous waste, even those for which electronic manifests are authorized. The net effect of these changes is to maintain current shipping paper requirements for hazardous wastes. Since there is no change in the shipping paper requirements other than the inclusion of an indication on the shipping documentation that an electronic manifest is being used, the costs and benefits would be so minimal as to not warrant preparation of a regulatory impact analysis or regulatory evaluation. This determination may be revised as a result of public comment.
        B. Executive Order 13132
        This NPRM has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This proposed rule would preempt State, local, and Indian tribe requirements but does not propose any regulation that has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.
        The Federal hazardous material transportation law (Federal law), 49 U.S.C. 5101-5127, contains an express preemption provision in 49 U.S.C. 5125(b)(1) that a State, local, or Indian tribe requirement about any of the following subjects is preempted if the non-Federal requirement is not substantively the same as a provision in the Federal law or the HMR:
        (A) The designation, description, and classification of hazardous material;
        (B) The packing, repacking, handling, labeling, marking, and placarding of hazardous material;
        (C) The preparation, execution, and use of shipping documents related to hazardous material and requirements related to the number, contents, and placement of those documents;
        (D) The written notification, recording, and reporting of the unintentional release in transportation of hazardous material; or
        (E) The design, manufacturing, fabricating, marking, maintenance, reconditioning, repairing, or testing of a packaging or container represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material.
        This proposed rule addresses the preparation and use of shipping documents, and Federal law would preempt State, local, and Indian tribe written incident reporting requirements that are not “substantively the same as” the requirements in this proposed rule HMR.

        Federal law provides at section 5125(b)(2) that, if DOT issues a regulation concerning any of the covered subjects, DOT must determine and publish in the Federal Register the effective date of Federal preemption. The effective date may not be earlier than the 90th day following the date of issuance of the final rule and not later than two years after the date of issuance. We propose that the effective date of Federal preemption would be 180 days from publication of a final rule in this matter in the Federal Register.
        C. Executive Order 13084
        This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because this proposed rule, if adopted, would not significantly or uniquely affect the Indian tribal communities, and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of the Executive Order do not apply.
        D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The intent of the changes in this notice is to clarify that shipping paper information must still accompany every shipment of hazardous waste, even those for which electronic manifests are authorized. The net effect of these changes is to maintain current shipping paper requirements for hazardous wastes. Since there is no change in the shipping paper requirements other than the inclusion of an indication on the shipping documentation that an electronic manifest is being used, the impacts of this rule, if adopted, are anticipated to be so minimal as to not warrant preparation of a regulatory impact analysis. Therefore, I certify that this rulemaking action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        E. Paperwork Reduction Act
        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. This proposed rule does not propose any change in information collection burdens. The information collection associated with the proposal is currently reported and has been approved by OMB under control number 2137-0034.
        F. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
        A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. The RIN number contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action with the Unified Agenda.
        G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        This rulemaking would not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It would not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector.
        H. Environmental Assessment
        The intent of the changes in this notice is to clarify that shipping paper information must still accompany every shipment of hazardous waste, even those for which electronic manifests are authorized. The net effect of these changes is to maintain current shipping paper requirements for hazardous wastes. Since there is no change in the shipping paper requirements other than the inclusion of an indication on the shipping documentation that an electronic manifest is being used, we find that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with this proposed rule.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 172
          Education, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

        In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 172 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 172—HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TABLE, SPECIAL PROVISIONS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION, AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
          1. The authority citation for part 172 would continue to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 5101-5127; 49 CFR 1.53.

          2. In § 172.205, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and the introductory text of paragraph (f) would be revised, paragraph (e) would be removed and reserved, paragraph (g) would be redesignated as paragraph (f)(6), and paragraph (h) would be removed to read as follows:

            § 172.205
            Hazardous waste manifest.
            (a) No person may offer, transport, transfer, or deliver a hazardous waste (waste) unless a hazardous waste manifest (manifest) is prepared in accordance with 40 CFR 262.20 and the manifest is signed, carried, and given in accordance with this section.
            (b) When a generator prepares an electronic manifest in accordance with 40 CFR 262.20(a)(3)—
            (1) Either a physical copy of the electronic manifest bearing the signature of the generator or a shipping paper meeting the requirements of §§ 172.200 through 172.204 must accompany the waste during transportation; and
            (2) The copy of the electronic manifest or the shipping paper must include a statement indicating that an electronic manifest is being used, such as “electronic manifest.”
            (c) When a generator prepares a paper manifest on Form 8700-22 (and 8700-22A when necessary) in accordance with 40 CFR 262.20(a)(2) and the instructions in the appendix to 40 CFR part 262—
            (1) The original copy of the manifest must be dated by, and bear the handwritten signatures of, the person representing:
            (i) The generator of the hazardous waste at the time that the hazardous waste is offered for transportation, and
            (ii) The initial carrier accepting the hazardous waste for transportation;
            (2) A copy of the manifest must be dated by, and bear the handwritten signatures of the person representing:
            (i) Each subsequent carrier accepting the hazardous waste for transportation at the time of acceptance, and
            (ii) The designated facility receiving the hazardous waste, upon receipt; and
            (3) A copy of the manifest bearing all required dates and signatures must be:
            (i) Given to a person representing each carrier accepting the hazardous waste for transportation;
            (ii) Given to a person representing the designated facility receiving the hazardous waste;
            (iii) Returned to the generator by the carrier that transported hazardous waste from the United States; and
            (iv) Retained by the generator and by the initial and each subsequent carrier for three years from the date the waste was accepted by the initial carrier. Each retained copy must bear all required signatures and dates up to and including those entered by the next person who received the hazardous waste from the person retaining the copy.
            (d) A physical copy of an electronic manifest or a paper manifest may be used as a shipping paper if it contains all the information required by this subpart. When used as a shipping paper, the physical copy of an electronic manifest or the paper manifest must be carried during transportation in the same manner as required by this subchapter for shipping papers.
            (e) [Reserved]
            (f) Transportation by rail. When a generator of a hazardous waste shipment by rail prepares a paper manifest on Form 8700-22 (and 8700-22A when necessary) in accordance with 40 CFR 262.20(a)(2) and the instructions in the appendix to 40 CFR part 262, the following requirements apply instead of the requirements in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section:

            Issued in Washington, DC, on July 31, 2001, under authority delegated in 49 CFR Part 106.
            Robert A. McGuire,
            Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.

      [FR Doc. 01-19647 Filed 8-7-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P