        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 300
        [Docket No. 100503209-0215-01]
        RIN 0648-AY85
        Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Limited Access for Guided Sport Charter Vessels in Alaska

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes regulations that would amend the limited access program for charter vessels in the guided sport fishery for Pacific halibut in the waters of International Pacific Halibut Commission Regulatory Area 2C (Southeast Alaska) and Area 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska). If approved, the proposed action would revise the method for assigning angler endorsements to charter halibut permits to more closely align each endorsement with the greatest number of charter vessel anglers reported for each vessel that a charter business used to qualify for a charter halibut permit. This action is necessary to achieve the halibut fishery management goals of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than August 5, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
           Send comments to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-AY85,” by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov.
          • Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.
          • Fax: 907-586-7557.
          • Hand delivery to the Federal Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, Juneau, AK 99801.

          All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. No comments will be posted for public viewing until after the comment period has closed. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe portable document file (pdf) formats only.

          Electronic copies of the Categorical Exclusion, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) prepared for this action are available from http://www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region website at http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. The Environmental Assessment, RIR, and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the charter halibut limited access program are available from the NMFS Alaska Region website at http://alaskafisheries.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 above address) and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to 202-395-7285.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rachel Baker, 907-586-7228.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) through regulations established under authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). The IPHC promulgates regulations governing the Pacific halibut fishery under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, D.C., on March 29, 1979). Regulations developed by the IPHC are subject to approval by the Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). After approval by the Secretary of State and the Secretary, the IPHC regulations are published in the Federal Register as annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. The most recent IPHC regulations were published March 18, 2010 (75 FR 13024). IPHC regulations affecting sport fishing for halibut and charter vessels in IPHC Areas 2C and 3A may be found in sections 3, 25, and 28 of the March 18 final rule.
        The Halibut Act, at sections 773c(a) and (b), provides the Secretary with general responsibility to carry out the Convention and the Halibut Act. In adopting regulations that may be necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention and the Halibut Act, the Secretary is directed to consult with the Secretary of the department in which the U.S. Coast Guard is operating.
        Section 773c(c) of the Halibut Act also authorizes the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) to develop regulations, including limited access regulations, that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations. Such Council-developed regulations may be implemented by NMFS only after approval by the Secretary. The Council has exercised this authority most notably in the development of its commercial fishery Individual Fishing Quota Program, codified at 50 CFR part 679, subsistence halibut fishery management measures, codified at 50 CFR 300.65, and the limited access program for charter vessels in the guided sport fishery, codified at 50 CFR 300.67.
        Charter Halibut Limited Access Program
        In March 2007, the Council recommended a limited access program for charter vessels in IPHC Areas 2C and 3A. The intent of the program was to curtail growth of fishing capacity in the charter sector by limiting the number of charter vessels that may participate in the guided sport fishery for halibut in Areas 2C and 3A. NMFS published a final rule implementing the program on January 5, 2010 (75 FR 554). Under the program, NMFS will issue a charter halibut permit to a licensed charter fishing business owner based on his or her past participation in the charter halibut fishery. Portions of the limited access program final rule related to eligibility criteria, the permit application process, and other administrative procedures became effective on February 4, 2010. The requirement to have a charter halibut permit on board a charter vessel fishing for halibut will become effective on February 1, 2011. This schedule enables NMFS to complete most administrative procedures and issue charter halibut permits in 2010, in preparation for fishing under the program in 2011.
        Qualifications for Charter Halibut Permit
        An applicant must demonstrate participation in the charter halibut fishery during a historic qualifying period and during a recent participation period to receive an initial allocation of a charter halibut permit. The historic qualifying period is the sport fishing season established by the IPHC in 2004 and 2005 (February 1 through December 31). Minimum participation criteria need be met in only one of these years-2004 or 2005. The recent participation period is the sport fishing season established by the IPHC in 2008 (February 1 through December 31). This year was selected as the recent participation period because, at the time of program implementation, it was the most recent year for which NMFS had a complete record of saltwater charter vessel logbook data from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).
        The basic unit of participation for receiving a charter halibut permit will be a logbook fishing trip. A logbook fishing trip is an event that was reported to ADF&G in a saltwater charter vessel logbook in accordance with the time limit required for reporting such a trip that was in effect at the time of the trip.
        The minimum participation qualifications include documentation of at least five logbook fishing trips during one of the qualifying years-2004 or 2005-and at least five logbook fishing trips during 2008. Meeting these minimum participation qualifications could qualify an applicant for a non-transferable charter halibut permit. The minimum participation qualifications for a transferable charter halibut permit include documentation of at least 15 logbook fishing trips during one of the qualifying years-2004 or 2005-and at least 15 logbook fishing trips during 2008.
        Angler Endorsements
        Each charter halibut permit will have an angler endorsement number. The angler endorsement number on the permit is the maximum number of charter vessel anglers that may catch and retain halibut on board the vessel. The term “charter vessel angler” is defined by regulation at 50 CFR 300.61 to include all persons, paying or non-paying, who use the services of the charter vessel guide. The angler endorsement assigned to a charter halibut permit would not limit the number of persons that an operator may carry, only the number that may catch and retain halibut.
        A permit holder may use a charter halibut permit on board any vessel that meets federal and state requirements to operate as a charter vessel in the guided sport fishery for halibut in Areas 2C and 3A. A vessel operator will be able to use multiple permits to increase the number of charter vessel anglers on board. For example, if a vessel operator has two charter permits on board, one with an angler endorsement of four and one with an endorsement of six, then the vessel operator can have a maximum of 10 charter vessel anglers on board who are catching and retaining halibut, if the operator is otherwise authorized to carry 10 persons. If other restrictions, such as United States Coast Guard safety regulations, prevent 10 anglers from being on board the vessel, the charter halibut permits will not authorize the vessel operator to violate those provisions of law.
        Under the final rule implementing the limited access program (75 FR 554, January 5, 2010), the angler endorsement assigned to a charter halibut permit for all qualified businesses would be equal to the greatest number of anglers reported for any vessel the business used for at least one logbook fishing trip in the qualifying period, subject to a minimum endorsement of four. All permits issued to an applicant would have the same angler endorsement. For example, if a business qualified for three charter halibut permits using three vessels, each permit issued to the business would be assigned the same angler endorsement, even if the greatest number of charter vessel anglers reported was different for each vessel the business used in the qualifying period.
        The Proposed Action

        In February 2010, the Council expressed concern about the method of assigning angler endorsements to the second and subsequent charter halibut permits issued to businesses receiving more than one permit. The Council noted that in some cases, the greatest number of charter vessel anglers reported for a vessel could be greater than the number of anglers reported on other vessels the business used to qualify for charter halibut permits. For example, if an applicant used three vessels to qualify for three permits, and reported a maximum of six charter vessel anglers for one vessel's trips, a maximum of four charter vessel anglers for the second vessel, and a maximum of three charter vessel anglers for the third vessel in the qualifying period, under the final rule the applicant would be issued three charter halibut permits, each with an angler endorsement of six. The Council was concerned about this method of assigning angler endorsements because the total number of angler endorsements the applicant would receive on all permits combined could be greater than the total number of charter vessel anglers the business reported for all of the vessels it used in the qualifying period. The Council also was concerned that the method of assigning angler endorsements under the final rule could result in an increase in fishing capacity the Council did not intend. The total number of angler endorsements that would be assigned to permits under the final rule potentially could enable a greater number of charter vessel anglers to catch and retain halibut under the limited access program than qualifying charter operators reported during the qualifying period.
        The Council initiated this proposed action to more closely align angler endorsements assigned to the second and subsequent permits issued to a business with a permit recipient's vessel-specific activity during the qualifying period. Using the previous example in which the applicant would receive three charter halibut permits, under this action, each permit's angler endorsement would be derived from the number of charter vessel anglers reported for each vessel the applicant used in the qualifying period, with a minimum endorsement of four. The applicant would receive one permit with an angler endorsement of six, and two permits with an angler endorsement of four.
        In recommending the proposed action, the Council clarified that the status quo method of assigning an angler endorsement to the first charter halibut permit received by a business receiving more than one permit, and to the only permit received by a business receiving one permit is consistent with its intent, because the angler endorsement assigned to these permits would be derived from the greatest number of anglers reported for any vessel the business used for at least one logbook fishing trip in the qualifying period. The proposed rule would maintain the status quo method for assigning angler endorsements to the first charter halibut permit issued to all qualifying applicants, and would only change the method used to assign angler endorsements to each subsequent permit received by qualified applicants.
        Revised Method of Assigning Angler Endorsements
        The Council reviewed the RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) prepared for this action in April 2010, and selected a preferred alternative to revise the method of assigning angler endorsements to charter halibut permits issued to businesses receiving more than one permit for Area 2C, Area 3A, or both. Under the proposed rule, for applicants that qualify for more than one charter halibut permit, NMFS would determine the greatest number of charter vessel anglers the applicant reported for each vessel the applicant used in the qualifying period (2004 and 2005). Each of these numbers would equal a vessel-specific angler endorsement number that would be assigned to a charter halibut permit issued to the applicant. NMFS would assign a vessel-specific angler endorsement of four if the applicant's greatest number of reported anglers was fewer than four on that vessel in the qualifying period. A vessel-specific angler endorsement number would be used only once to assign an angler endorsement to a charter halibut permit, unless the applicant used the same vessel to qualify for a permit in Area 2C and Area 3A.
        For each affected applicant, NMFS would assign the vessel-specific angler endorsement numbers for each area in descending order. The greatest vessel-specific angler endorsement number derived from any vessel the business used in the qualifying period would be assigned to the first transferable permit the applicant would receive. Once this vessel-specific angler endorsement number is assigned to a charter halibut permit, that number could not be assigned any additional angler endorsements for that area. The next greatest vessel-specific angler endorsement number would be assigned to the first subsequent transferable permit the applicant would receive, and this process of assigning endorsement numbers to transferable permits would continue until all transferable permits for an applicant were assigned an angler endorsement. When all transferable charter halibut permits have been assigned an angler endorsement, the next greatest vessel-specific angler endorsement number would be assigned to the first non-transferable permit that the applicant would receive. The same process would continue until all non-transferable permits were assigned an angler endorsement. If the applicant would receive charter halibut permits for both Area 2C and Area 3A, the process would be repeated using the vessel-specific angler endorsement numbers for the second area.
        If the applicant would receive only one or more non-transferable charter halibut permits for an area, the greatest vessel-specific angler endorsement number would be assigned to the first non-transferable permit the applicant would receive. The next greatest vessel-specific angler endorsement number would be assigned to the next non-transferable permit, and this process would continue until all non-transferable permits issued to the business were assigned an angler endorsement, and repeated for a second area, if necessary.
        This method of assigning angler endorsements was used in the Council's 2007 initial review and public review drafts of the RIR prepared for the charter halibut limited access program (see ADDRESSES) to illustrate the effects of the angler endorsement element and options. The angler endorsement assignment method was not stated explicitly in the Council motion in which it identified its preferred alternative in March 2007. However, the Council determined in April 2010 that this method was consistent with its intent for assigning angler endorsements to charter halibut permits.
        Effects of the Proposed Action

        The effects of the proposed action are discussed in detail in the RIR/IRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES). The proposed action would affect only the number of angler endorsements that would be assigned to charter halibut permits initially issued to applicants that would receive more than one permit in an area. It would not affect the number of transferable and non-transferable charter halibut permits that will be initially issued under the limited access program prior to the start of the 2011 fishing season. The RIR prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES) estimates that approximately 89, or 39 percent, of apparently qualified charter business owners would qualify for more than one charter halibut permit in Area 2C and approximately 69, or 24 percent, of apparently qualified charter business owners would qualify for more than one charter halibut permit in Area 3A. The Council's preferred alternative would result in approximately 2,618 angler endorsements assigned to 501 permits in Area 2C. This would be a reduction of approximately 13 percent from the 3,001 angler endorsements estimated to be assigned to charter halibut permits under the method used to assign angler endorsements in the final rule implementing the limited access program. In Area 3A, the Council's preferred alternative would result in approximately 3,122 angler endorsements assigned to 410 permits. This would be a reduction of approximately 11 percent from the 3,524 endorsements estimated to be assigned to permits under the final rule implementing the limited access program.
        The proposed action would reduce the angler endorsement numbers assigned to some charter halibut permits, while leaving other angler endorsement numbers unaffected. A permit with fewer angler endorsements would authorize fewer charter vessel anglers to catch and retain halibut on a fishing trip. In general, this could reduce the revenue the charter halibut permit holder would receive from using that permit relative to the status quo. Transferable charter halibut permits with reduced angler endorsement numbers under the proposed action also likely would transfer for a lower value.
        A charter halibut permit applicant receiving one or more charter halibut permits with a reduced angler endorsement under the proposed action would be adversely impacted. Future holders of affected permits likely would not be affected: while they would be able to generate less revenue from a charter halibut permit with a lower angler endorsement number, the purchase price of the permit likely would be less. Absent unexpected events, the reduced charter halibut permit value likely would be balanced by the reduced purchase costs of affected permits. A charter halibut permit recipient whose angler endorsement number would not be changed under the proposed action should not incur any costs from this action.
        The Council intended for NMFS to revise angler endorsements before initially issuing charter halibut permits prior to the 2011 charter season. The proposed rule would increase administrative costs for NMFS because it would require an appeals process (see Implementation of the Proposed Action section below), in addition to the process established for charter halibut permits under the limited access program final rule (75 FR 554, January 5, 2010). This appeals process would result in NMFS initially issuing charter halibut permits closer to the anticipated start of the 2011 charter season on February 1 than it intended under the status quo. This later permit issuance schedule could create some uncertainty for affected charter halibut permit applicants with respect to planning for the 2011 season, particularly for those applicants who already have indicated they accepted the angler endorsement numbers assigned to their permits under the current regulations.
        Although the proposed action would have distributional impacts on individual charter business owners, revising the method of assigning angler endorsements to charter halibut permits likely would not impact current charter industry capacity and the sector's ability to meet angler demand. The RIR (see ADDRESSES) estimates that the number of angler endorsements that would be issued under the proposed action would provide sufficient charter capacity to meet current angler demand, and even potentially some increase in demand. Similarly, the proposed action is not expected to have a large impact on angler demand for charter vessel trips or the harvest of halibut by charter vessel anglers because of the action's limited impact on capacity in the charter vessel sector.
        Implementation of the Proposed Action
        To implement the proposed action, NMFS would create an official record of charter business participation in Areas 2C and 3A during the qualifying period and the recent participation period. The official record would be based on data from ADF&G, and would link each logbook fishing trip to an ADF&G Business Owner License and to the person-individual, corporation, partnership, or other entity-that obtained the license. Thus, the official record would include information from ADF&G on the person(s) who obtained ADF&G Business Owner Licenses in the qualifying period, and in the recent participation period; the logbook fishing trips in those years that met the State of Alaska's legal requirements; the Business Owner License that authorized each logbook fishing trip; and the vessel that made each logbook fishing trip. The official record also would include the angler endorsement assigned to each charter halibut permit using the method implemented by the proposed regulatory amendment.
        If the proposed rule is approved, NMFS would notify all affected business owners of the revised angler endorsement(s) assigned to the charter halibut permit(s) they would be issued after the effective date of the rule. Affected business owners would have 30 days to challenge NMFS' determination. Charter business owners could submit documentation or further evidence in support of their claim during this 30-day evidentiary period. If NMFS accepts the business owner's documentation as sufficient to change the agency determination, NMFS would change the official record and issue a charter halibut permit with a revised angler endorsement accordingly. If NMFS does not agree that the further evidence supports the participant's claim, NMFS would issue an initial administrative determination (IAD) denying the participant's claim, and issue the participant's charter halibut permit(s) consistent with the official record. The IAD would describe why NMFS is initially denying some or all of an applicant's claim and would provide instructions on how to appeal the IAD.
        Charter business owners would be able to appeal an IAD through the NOAA Office of Administrative Appeals (OAA). The OAA is a separate unit within the office of the Regional Administrator for the Alaska Region of NMFS. The OAA is charged with developing a record and preparing a formal decision on all appeals. Unless the Regional Administrator intervenes, the OAA decision becomes the Final Agency Action 30 days after the decision is issued. An applicant who is aggrieved by the Final Agency Action may then appeal to the U.S. District Court. Regulations at 50 CFR 679.43 provide a regulatory description of the existing appeals process. NMFS would issue interim permits to applicants who filed timely applications and whose appeal is accepted by NOAA.
        Classification

        Regulations governing the U.S. fisheries for Pacific halibut are developed by the IPHC, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the Council, and the Secretary. Section 5 of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 773c) allows the Regional Council having authority for a particular geographical area to develop regulations governing the allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. Convention waters, as long as those regulations do not conflict with IPHC regulations. This action is consistent with the Council's authority to allocate halibut catches among fishery participants in the waters in and off Alaska.

        Executive Order 12866
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        Executive Order 12962
        This proposed rule is consistent with Executive Order 12962 as amended September 26, 2008, which requires federal agencies to ensure that recreational fishing is managed as a sustainable activity, and is consistent with existing law.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        An IRFA was prepared as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action may be found at the beginning of this preamble. A summary of the IRFA follows. Copies of the IRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
        The entities directly regulated by this action are guided charter businesses that would qualify to receive more than one charter halibut permit in IPHC Areas 2C and 3A. NMFS estimates that under the status quo, 89 firms would qualify to receive more than one charter halibut permit in Area 2C, and 69 firms would qualify to receive more than one charter halibut permit in Area 3A. While quantitative information on individual charter business revenues is lacking, almost all of these firms are believed to be small entities under the terms of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The only exceptions may be some lodge-based operations in Southeast Alaska.
        The Small Business Administration (SBA) specifies that for marinas and charter/party boats, a small business is one with annual receipts less than $6.0 million. The largest of these charter operations, which are lodges, may be considered large entities under SBA standards, but that cannot be confirmed because NMFS does not collect economic data on lodges. All of the other charter operations likely would be considered small entities based on SBA criteria, because they would be expected to have gross revenues of less than $6.0 million on an annual basis.
        The analysis prepared for the proposed action did not identify any new projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements on directly regulated entities. If the proposed rule is approved, NMFS would notify affected applicants of the change to the angler endorsement assigned to a charter halibut permit that would be issued to an applicant.
        NMFS has not identified other federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
        An IRFA is required to describe significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable statutes and that would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
        The status quo alternative does not achieve the Council's objectives for determining the number of angler endorsements assigned to charter halibut permits. The objective of this action is to more closely align angler endorsements assigned to the second and subsequent charter halibut permits issued to a business with the actual greatest number of anglers for each vessel that a business used to qualify for charter halibut permits. The Council's preferred alternative for this action would reduce the total number of angler endorsements assigned to charter halibut permits from the number of endorsements that would be assigned under the status quo alternative.
        As noted above, all or most of the entities that would be directly impacted by this regulation are small entities. This action likely would have an insignificant adverse impact on some of these entities relative to the status quo alternative, by reducing the number of angler endorsements assigned to charter halibut permits they would be initially issued. A reduction in the number of angler endorsements assigned to a charter halibut permit generally would reduce the potential for profit from that permit, because a permit with fewer endorsements would authorize fewer charter vessel anglers on any given fishing trip. However, the RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) prepared for this action notes that individual charter halibut permits could be used more or less intensively by charter vessel operators to meet angler demand. Charter vessel operators that receive a reduced number of angler endorsements under the proposed action could counteract this reduction by increasing the average number of anglers on a charter vessel fishing trip, or by increasing the average number of charter vessel fishing trips associated with an individual permit. Changes in the average number of anglers on an individual charter vessel fishing trip likely would produce relatively modest changes in the operator's costs and revenues for the trip. On balance, these changes are unlikely to have a significant economic impact on an individual charter vessel operator.
        The Council considered two options to the preferred alternative. One option would have determined a vessel-specific angler endorsement for businesses receiving more than one charter halibut permit for all vessels used in only one year of the qualifying period, rather than considering all vessels in both 2004 and 2005. Another option would have used the same one-year restriction for determining angler endorsements, but applied the proposed action to all businesses that would qualify to receive charter halibut permits, rather than limiting the action only to charter businesses that would qualify to receive more than one charter halibut permit. The Council rejected these options because they would result in changes to the status quo method of assigning angler endorsements to the first charter halibut permit issued to affected businesses, in addition to changing the status quo method of assigning angler endorsements to the second and subsequent charter halibut permit issued to affected businesses. In recommending the preferred alternative, the Council clarified that it intended to revise the status quo method of assigning an angler endorsement only to the second and subsequent charter halibut permits received by a business receiving more than one permit. The Council did not intend to revise the status quo method of assigning an angler endorsement to the first charter halibut permit received by a business receiving one or more charter halibut permits. Therefore, the preferred alternative accomplishes the distributional objectives of the Council with the least adverse impact on directly regulated entities.
        Data on cost structure, affiliation, and operational procedures and strategies in the halibut charter vessel sector are unavailable, and NMFS is unable to quantify the economic impacts of the proposed action on affected small entities for any of the options analyzed. The qualitative analysis in the RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) estimates that none of the options considered under the proposed action would be expected to have a significant impact on small entities. While there may be some costs imposed on small entities through impacts on permit flexibility and implementation expenses, these impacts are likely to be small, because of the limited impact of the proposed action on the operational efficiency of an individual charter operator.
        Collection of Information

        This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 0648-0592. Public reporting burden estimate per response for the charter halibut permit application is two hours. This estimate includes 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 ADDRESSEES) 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, nor shall any person be subject to a 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 300
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

          Dated: June 29, 2010.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 300, subpart E, as follows:

          PART 300-INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS
          1. The authority citation for part 300, subpart E, continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             16 U.S.C. 773-773k.

          2. In § 300.67:
          a. Redesignate paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) as paragraphs (e)(5) and (e)(6), respectively;
          b. Revise paragraph (e) introductory text;
          c. Add paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(4); and
          d. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (e)(5) to read as follows:

            § 300.67
            Charter halibut limited access program.
            (e) Angler endorsement. A charter halibut permit will be endorsed as follows:
            (1) The angler endorsement number for the first transferable permit for an area issued to an applicant will be the greatest number of charter vessel anglers reported on any logbook trip in the qualifying period in that area.
            (2) The angler endorsement number for each subsequent transferable permit issued to the same applicant for the same area will be the greatest number of charter vessel anglers reported by the applicant on any logbook trip in the qualifying period for a vessel not already used in that area to determine an angler endorsement, until all transferable permits issued to the applicant are assigned an angler endorsement.
            (3) The angler endorsement number for the first non-transferable permit for an area issued to an applicant will be the greatest number of charter vessel anglers reported on any logbook trip in the qualifying period for a vessel not already used to determine an angler endorsement in that area.
            (4) The angler endorsement number for each subsequent non-transferable permit issued to the same applicant for the same area will be the greatest number of charter vessel anglers reported by the applicant on any logbook trip in the qualifying period for a vessel not already used in that area to determine an angler endorsement, until all non-transferable permits issued to the applicant are assigned an angler endorsement.
            (5) The angler endorsement number will be four (4) if the greatest number of charter vessel anglers reported on any logbook fishing trip for an area in the qualifying period is less than four (4), or no charter vessel anglers were reported on any of the applicant's logbook fishing trips in the applicant-selected year.

      [FR Doc. 2010-16358 Filed 7-2-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        Defense Acquisition Regulations System
        48 CFR Parts 204 and 252
        RIN 0750-AG47
        Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Safeguarding Unclassified DoD Information (DFARS Case 2011-D039)

          AGENCY:
          Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

          ACTION:
          Notice of meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD is hosting a public meeting to initiate a dialogue with industry and Government agencies regarding the proposed rule for the safeguarding of unclassified information.

          DATES:

            Public Meeting: November 15, 2011, from 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. EST.

            Submission of Comments: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before December 16, 2011, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:

            Public Meeting: The public meeting will be held in the General Services Administration (GSA), Central Office Auditorium, 1800 F Street NW., Washington,  DC 20405. The GSA Auditorium is located on the main floor of the building.

            Submission of Comments: You may submit written comments, identified by DFARS Case 2011-D039, using any of the following methods:
          ○ Regulations.gov:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inputting “DFARS Case 2011-D039” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2011-D039.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2011-D039” on your attached document.
          ○ Email: dfars@osd.mil. Include DFARS Case 2011-D039 in the subject line of the message.
          ○ Fax: (703) 602-0350.
          ○ Mail: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Attn: Mr. Julian Thrash, OUSD(AT&L)DPAP(DARS), Room 3B855, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3060.

          Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment, please check www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Julian E. Thrash, telephone (703) 602-0310.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The DFARS does not presently address the safeguarding of unclassified DoD information within industry, nor does it address cyber intrusion reporting for that information. DoD published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and notice of public meeting in the Federal Register at 75 FR 9563 on March 3, 2010, to provide the public an opportunity for input into the initial rulemaking process. Subsequently, a proposed DFARS rule was published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 38089 on June 29, 2011. The proposed rule addresses basic and enhanced safeguarding procedures for the protection of DoD information. An extension of the public comment period to November 30, 2011, was published in the Federal Register at 76 FR 52297 on August 22, 2011. This notice further extends the public comment period to December 16, 2011.

          Registration: Individuals wishing to attend the public meeting should register by November 4, 2011, to ensure adequate room accommodations and to create an attendee list for secure entry to the GSA building for anyone who is not a Federal Government employee with a Government badge. Interested parties may register at this Web site, http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/safeguarding_unclassified_DoD_information.html, by providing the following information:
        (1) Company or organization name;
        (2) Names and email addresses of persons attending;
        (3) Last four digits of social security number for each attendee (non-Federal employees only); and
        (4) Identify presenter if desiring to speak (limited to a 10-minute presentation per company or organization).

        Attendees are encouraged to arrive at least 30 minutes early to ensure they are processed through security in a timely fashion. Prior registrants will be given priority if room constraints require limits on attendance.

          Special Accommodations: The public meeting location is physically accessible to persons with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Julian E. Thrash, telephone (703) 602-0310, at least 10 working days prior to the meeting date.

          Presentations: If an attendee wishes to present a short oral presentation at the meeting not-to-exceed 10 minutes, please advise during registration so appropriate arrangements can be made for scheduling purposes. If the presenter intends to share a handout to accompany an oral statement, please submit the document to dfars@osd.mil for posting no later than November 10, 2011, so that other attendees may download prior to the meeting. When submitting briefing information, provide the presenter's name, organization affiliation, telephone number, and email address on the cover page.

          Correspondence and Comments: Please cite “Public Meeting, DFARS Case 2011-D039” in all correspondence related to this public meeting. The submitted presentations will be the only record of the public meeting. To have a presentation considered as a public comment for the formation of the final rule, the presentation, or pertinent excerpts, must be submitted separately as a written comment as instructed in the above paragraph titled, “Submission of Comments.”
        Government procurement.

          Mary Overstreet,
          Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

      [FR Doc. 2011-27931 Filed 10-27-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 1, 2, 9, 12, 22, and 52
        [FAR Case 2013-001; Docket 2013-0001, Sequence 1]
        RIN 9000-AM55
        Federal Acquisition Regulation; Ending Trafficking in Persons; Extension of Time for Comments

          AGENCY:
          Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD, GSA, and NASA issued a proposed rule on September 26, 2013, amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to strengthen protections against trafficking in persons in Federal contracts. These changes are intended to implement E.O. 13627 and Title XVII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The comment period is being extended to provide additional time for interested parties to provide comments for FAR Case 2013-001, Ending Trafficking in Persons, to December 20, 2013.

          DATES:
          For the proposed rule published on September 26, 2013 (78 FR 59317), submit comments by December 20, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2013-001 by any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “FAR Case 2013-001” under the heading “Enter Keyword or ID” and selecting “Search”. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “FAR Case 2013-001”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2013-001” on your attached document.
          • Fax: 202-501-4067.
          • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite “FAR Case 2013-001” in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Ms. Marissa Petrusek, Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-0136 for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAR Case 2013-001.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        DoD, GSA, and NASA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 78 FR 59317, September 26, 2013. The comment period is extended to provide additional time for interested parties to submit comments on the FAR case until December 20, 2013.

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1, 2, 9, 12, 22, and 52
          Government procurement.

          Dated: November 15, 2013.
          William Clark,
          Acting Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

      [FR Doc. 2013-27878 Filed 11-20-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0648; EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0834; FRL-9773-4]
        Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio and Indiana; Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio, Ohio and Indiana 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan Revisions to Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is proposing to approve the request by Ohio and Indiana to revise the Cincinnati-Hamilton, 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance air quality State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to replace the previously approved motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) with budgets developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2010a emissions model. The Ohio and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area include the Ohio Counties of Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, and Warren, Ohio and Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn County, Indiana. Ohio submitted the SIP revision request to EPA on June 29, 2012. Indiana submitted the SIP revision request to EPA for parallel processing with a letter dated October 12, 2012, and followed up with a final submittal on December 11, 2012. Ohio and Indiana have submitted identical budgets which cover the Ohio and Indiana portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 1997 ozone maintenance area.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before February 28, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0648 for Ohio and EPA-RO5-OAR-2012-0834 for Indiana, by one of the following methods:
          1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov.

          3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.
          4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
          5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Anthony Maietta, Environmental Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777, maietta.anthony@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the states' SIP submittals as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

          Dated: January 11, 2013.
          Susan Hedman,
          Regional Administrator, Region 5.

      [FR Doc. 2013-01726 Filed 1-28-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0007, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0394, 0395, 0396 and 0397; FRL-10012-70-OLEM]
        National Priorities List

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”) include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (“NPL”) constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the agency”) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further investigations will allow the EPA to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule proposes to add four sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL and withdraws a previous proposal for NPL addition.

          DATES:
          Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted (postmarked) on or before November 2, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          Identify the appropriate docket number from the table below.

          Docket Identification Numbers by Site

            Site name
            City/county, state
            Docket ID No.

            Cherokee Zinc—Weir Smelter
            Weir, KS
            EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0394

            Billings PCE
            Billings, MT
            EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0395

            Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc
            Franklinville, NJ
            EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0396

            Northwest Odessa Groundwater
            Odessa, TX
            EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0397

        You may send comments, identified by the appropriate docket number, by any of the following methods:
        • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ (our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
        • Agency Website: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/current-npl-updates-new-proposed-npl-sites-and-new-npl-sites.
        Scroll down to the site for which you would like to submit comments and click the “Comment Now” link.
        • Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center, Superfund Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
        • Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only): EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).

          Instructions: All submissions received must include the appropriate Docket ID No. for site(s) for which you are submitting comments. Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Review/Public Comment” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there may be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Terry Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Mail Code 5204P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

          I. Public Review/Public Comment
          A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
          B. How do I access the documents?
          C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA Headquarters docket?
          D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA regional dockets?
          E. How do I submit my comments?
          F. What happens to my comments?
          G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
          H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?
          I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
          J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the NPL?
          II. Background
          A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
          B. What is the NCP?
          C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
          D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
          E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
          F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
          G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
          H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up?
          I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
          J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?
          K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?
          III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
          A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
          B. Withdrawal of Previous Proposal for NPL Addition
          IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
          A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
          B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
          C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
          D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
          E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
          F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
          G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
          H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
          I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
          J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
          K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

        I. Public Review/Public Comment
        A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?

        Yes, documents that form the basis for the EPA's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public dockets located both at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in the regional offices. These documents are also available by electronic access at https://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the Addresses section above).
        B. How do I access the documents?

        The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading Room for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ as there may be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

        The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
        The following is the contact information for the EPA Dockets: Mail comments to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)
        The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:
        • Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.
        • James Desir, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4342.
        • Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-3355.
        • Sandra Harrigan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8926.

        • Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-4465.
        • Michelle Delgado-Brown, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Mailcode SED, Dallas, TX 75270; 214/665-3154.
        • Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7956.
        • Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6578.
        • Eugenia Chow, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-3160.
        • Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 155, Mailcode 12-D12-1, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/890-0591.
        You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note that due to the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized maps may be viewed only in-person; since the EPA dockets are not equipped to both copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them out electronically.
        You may use the docket at https://www.regulations.gov to access documents in the Headquarters docket. Please note that there are differences between the Headquarters docket and the regional dockets and those differences are outlined in this preamble below.
        C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA Headquarters docket?
        The Headquarters docket for this proposed rule contains the following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; documentation records describing the information used to compute the score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements or the EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the documentation record.
        D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA regional dockets?
        The regional dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the information in the Headquarters docket plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by the EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference documents are available only in the regional dockets.
        E. How do I submit my comments?
        Follow the online instructions detailed above in the ADDRESSES section for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

        F. What happens to my comments?

        The EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that the EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.
        G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?

        Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The EPA will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.
        H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?
        Generally, the EPA will not respond to late comments. The EPA can guarantee only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. The EPA has a policy of generally not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late comments.
        I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
        During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters docket and are available to the public on an “as received” basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the regional dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.

        All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public docket at https://www.regulations.gov as the EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Once in the public dockets system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket ID number.
        J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the NPL?
        In certain instances, interested parties have written to the EPA concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and comment will not generally be included in the docket.
        II. Background
        A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

        In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (“CERCLA” or “the Act”), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (“SARA”), Public Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

        B. What is the NCP?
        To implement CERCLA, the EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (“NCP”), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances or releases or substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or welfare. The EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
        As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes “criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.” “Removal” actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).
        C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
        The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of “releases” and the highest priority “facilities” and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
        For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by the EPA (the “General Superfund section”), and one of sites that are owned or operated by other Federal agencies (the “Federal Facilities section”). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody or control, although the EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.
        D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
        There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS, which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. On January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2760), a subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS to enable the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous substances or pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures through subsurface intrusion when evaluating sites for the NPL. The current HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure and subsurface intrusion, and air. As a matter of agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each state may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each state as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
        • The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
        • The EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.
        • The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release.
        The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.
        E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
        A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the “Superfund”) only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). (“Remedial actions” are those “consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * * *” 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL “does not imply that monies will be expended.” The EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
        F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
        The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
        Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.

        When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came.

        In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g., the “Jones Co. Plant site”) in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the “site”). The “site” is thus neither equal to, nor confined by, the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination; and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For example, the name “Jones Co. Plant site,” does not imply that the Jones Company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.
        The EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation (“RI”) “is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and extent of the problem presented by the release” as more information is developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an interactive fashion with the feasibility Study (“FS”) (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination “has come to be located” before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.
        Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
        For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.
        G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
        The EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(e). This section also provides that the EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:
        (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
        (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or
        (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
        H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up?
        In November 1995, the EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.
        I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
        The EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (“CCL”) to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.

        Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) the EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. For more information on the CCL, see the EPA's internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/construction-completions-national-priorities-list-npl-sites-number.
        J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?

        The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-9.
        K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?

        In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two memoranda that can be found at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

        The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which state and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1) explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3) emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states that information on their responses will be publicly available.

        A model letter and correspondence between the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

        III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
        A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

        In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add four sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund section. All of the sites in this rule are being proposed for NPL addition based on an HRS score of 28.50 or above.
        The sites are presented in the table below.

          General Superfund Section

            State
            Site name
            City/county

            KS
            Cherokee Zinc—Weir Smelter
            Weir.

            MT
            Billings PCE
            Billings.

            NJ
            Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc
            Franklinville.

            TX
            Northwest Odessa Groundwater
            Odessa.

        B. Withdrawal of Previous Proposal for NPL Addition
        The EPA is withdrawing its previous proposal to add the Capitol City Plume (also sometimes spelled Capital City Plume) site in Montgomery, Alabama to the NPL because the cleanup is proceeding under an agreement with the State. The City of Montgomery, Montgomery County, Montgomery Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board, the State of Alabama and the Montgomery Advertiser formed the Downtown Environmental Alliance to complete the investigation, risk assessment and develop a remedial action plan (Institutional Controls Plan) to address the Capitol City Plume under an agreement with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). The EPA has also entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the ADEM formally deferring the oversight lead to the State. The selected remedy at the site includes groundwater monitoring and land use controls that restrict the use of groundwater in the downtown area under a city ordinance, and land use for certain specific areas in the downtown area by environmental covenants and city ordinance.

        The rule proposing to add this site to the NPL can be found at 65 FR 30489 (May 11, 2000). Refer to the Docket ID number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0007 for supporting documentation regarding this action. Additional information regarding this site can be found on the Montgomery, Alabama website at https://www.montgomeryal.gov/live/capital-city-plume-information.

        IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

        A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
        This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
        B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
        This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
        C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
        This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.
        D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
        I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking.
        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
        This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL
        F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
        G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
        H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
        The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health and safety risks.
        I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
        This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
        K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

        The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

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

          Dated: August 24, 2020.
          Peter Wright,
          Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Management.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 300 as follows:

          PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN

        1. The authority citation for part 300 is revised to read as follows:

          Authority:
          33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

        2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by adding the entries for “KS,” “Cherokee Zinc—Weir Smelter”, “MT,” “Billings PCE”, “NJ,” “Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc” and “TX”, “Northwest Odessa Groundwater” in alphabetical order by state to read as follows:
        Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List

          Table 1—General Superfund Section

            State
            Site name
            City/county
            Notes a

            *         *         *         *         *         *         *

            KS
            Cherokee Zinc—Weir Smelter
            Weir

            *         *         *         *         *         *         *

            MT
            Billings PCE
            Billings

            *         *         *         *         *         *         *

            NJ
            Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc
            Franklinville

            *         *         *         *         *         *         *

            TX
            Northwest Odessa Groundwater
            Odessa

            *         *         *         *         *         *         *

            a A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50).

      [FR Doc. 2020-19171 Filed 9-2-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P