        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 81
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003; FRL-9967-11-OAR]
        EPA Responses to Certain State Designation Recommendations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Notification of Availability and Public Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Notification of availability and public comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has posted on our public electronic docket and Internet Web site responses to certain state designation recommendations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These responses include our intended designations for the affected areas. The EPA invites the public to review and provide input on our intended designations during the comment period specified in the DATES section. The EPA sent our responses directly to the states on or about August 22, 2017. The EPA intends to make final designation determinations for the areas of the country addressed by these responses no later than December 31, 2017.

          DATES:

          Comments must be received on or before October 5, 2017. Please refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the comment period.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to our public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          The public may inspect the recommendations from the states and territories, our recent letters notifying the affected states, territories, and tribes of our intended designations, and area-specific technical support information at the following locations:

            Regional offices
            States

            Dave Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA New England, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023, (617) 918-1661
            Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

            Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region II, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4014
            New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands.

            Cynthia H. Stahl, Acting Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2187, (215) 814-2180
            Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.

            R. Scott Davis, Chief, Air Planning Branch, EPA Region IV, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 12th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562-9127
            Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

            John Mooney, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region V, 77 West Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-6043
            Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

            Alan Shar, Acting Chief, Air Planning Section, EPA Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, (214) 665-6691
            Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

            Mike Jay, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region VII, 11201 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66129, (913) 551-7460
            Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska.

            Monica Morales, Air Program Director, EPA Region VIII, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129, (303) 312-6936
            Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

            Doris Lo, Air Planning Office, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3959
            American Samoa, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Navajo Nation, and the Hopi Tribe.

            Debra Suzuki, Manager, State and Tribal Air Programs, EPA Region X, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, Mail Code OAQ-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-0985
            Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

        The information can also be reviewed online at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations and also in the public docket for these SO2 designations at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For general questions concerning this action, please contact Liz Etchells, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, telephone (919) 541-0253, email at etchells.elizabeth@epa.gov. The following EPA contacts can answer questions regarding areas in a particular EPA Regional office:
          U.S. EPA Regional Office Contacts

          Region I—Leiran Biton, telephone (617) 918-1267, email at biton.leiran@epa.gov.

          Region II—Ken Fradkin, telephone (212) 637-3702, email at fradkin.kenneth@epa.gov.

          Region III—Ruth Knapp, telephone (215) 814-2191, email at knapp.ruth@epa.gov.

          Region IV—Twunjala Bradley, telephone (404) 562-9352, email at bradley.twunjala@epa.gov.

          Region V—John Summerhays, telephone (312) 886-6067, email at summerhays.john@epa.gov.

          Region VI—Dayana Medina, telephone (214) 665-7241, email at medina.dayana@epa.gov.

          Region VII—David Peter, telephone (913) 551-7397, email at peter.david@epa.gov.

          Region VIII—Adam Clark, telephone (303) 312-7104, email at clark.adam@epa.gov.
          Region IX—Anita Lee, telephone (415) 972-3958, email at lee.anita@epa.gov.
          Region X—John Chi, telephone (206) 553-1185, email at chi.john@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents
        The following is an outline of the Preamble.

          I. What is the purpose of this action?
          II. Instructions for Submitting Public Comments and Internet Web Site for Rulemaking Information
          III. What is the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and what are the health concerns that it addresses?
          IV. What are the CAA requirements for air quality designations and what action has the EPA taken to meet these requirements?
          V. What guidance has the EPA previously issue and how does the EPA now intend to apply the statutory requirements to determine area designations and boundaries?
          VI. What air quality information has the EPA used for these intended designations?
          VII. How do the Round 3 designations affect Indian country?
          VIII. Where can I find information forming the basis for the EPA's intended rule and exchanges between the EPA, states, and tribes related to this intended rule?

        I. What is the purpose of this action?

        The purpose of this action of availability is to solicit input from interested parties other than states on the EPA's recent responses to the state designation recommendations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These responses, and their supporting technical analyses, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations and also in the public docket for these SO2 designations at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003.

        On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a notice of final rulemaking that revised the primary SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 35520; June 22, 2010) after review of the existing primary SO2 standards promulgated on April 30, 1971 (36 FR 8187). The EPA established the revised primary SO2 NAAQS at 75 parts per billion (ppb) which is attained when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb.
        The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS is contained in the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 107(d) (42 U.S.C. 7407). After promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, each governor or tribal leader has an opportunity to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for nonattainment areas, to the EPA. The EPA considers these recommendations as part of its duty to promulgate the formal area designations and boundaries for the new or revised NAAQS. By no later than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, the EPA is required to notify states, territories, and tribes, as appropriate, of any intended modifications to an area designation or boundary recommendation that the EPA deems necessary.

        After invoking a 1-year extension of the deadlines to designate areas, as provided for in section 107 of the Act, the EPA completed an initial round of SO2 designations for certain areas of the country on July 25, 2013 (referred to as “Round 1”).1
           Following the initial designations, three lawsuits were filed against the EPA in different U.S. District Courts, alleging the agency had failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty under the CAA by not designating all portions of the country by the June 2, 2013, deadline. In one of those cases, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 2, 2015, entered an enforceable order for the EPA to complete the area designations by three specific deadlines according to the court-ordered schedule.

            1 A total of 29 areas throughout the U.S. were designated in this action published on August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47191). The EPA designated all 29 areas nonattainment based on violating monitored SO2 concentrations from Federal Reference Method and Federal Equivalent Method monitors that are sited and operated in accordance with 40 CFR parts 50 and 58, and did not at that time designate any other areas.

        To meet the first court-ordered deadline, additional areas were designated on June 30, 2016, and November 29, 2016 (collectively referred to as “Round 2”).2
           Pursuant to the court-ordered schedule,3
           the EPA must complete SO2 designations for the remaining areas of the country by two specific deadlines: December 31, 2017, and December 31, 2020. This current third round of designations addresses all remaining undesignated areas except those where a state 4
           has installed and begun timely operating a new SO2 monitoring network meeting EPA specifications referenced in EPA's SO2 Data Requirements Rule.5

            2 A total of 65 areas throughout the U.S. were designated in these actions published on July 12, 2016 (81 FR 45039), and December 13, 2016 (81 FR 89870). Of these 65 areas, seven were designated nonattainment.

            3 Sierra Club v. McCarthy, No. 3-13-cv-3953 (SI) (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015).

            4 In Mineral County, West Virginia, a new SO2 monitor was installed and is operated by the state of Maryland.

            5 40 CFR part 51, subpart BB (80 FR 51052; August 21, 2015).

        On or about August 22, 2017, consistent with section 107(d)(1)(b)(ii) of the CAA, the EPA notified affected states, territories, and tribes of our assessment of their recommended designations for Round 3. While we are in agreement with the recommendations for many areas, some warrant further discussion. We stand ready to assist and hope to resolve any differences regarding the proper designation for these areas within the 120-day process provided by the CAA.
        For any areas that we designate nonattainment in our final action, the CAA directs states to develop and submit to the EPA State Implementation Plans (SIPs) within 18 months of the effective date of the final rule, that meet the requirements of sections 172(c) and 191-192 of the CAA and provide for attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 5 years from the effective date of the final rule.
        II. Instructions for Submitting Public Comments and Internet Web Site for Rulemaking Information
        A. Invitation To Comment

        The purpose of this action is to solicit input from interested parties, other than the states, territories, and tribes to which we have sent notification letters, on the EPA's recent responses to the designation recommendations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. These responses, and their supporting technical analyses, can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations and also in the public docket for these SO2 designations at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003. Air dispersion modeling input and output files are too large to post in the docket or on the Web site and must be requested from the EPA Docket Office or the Regional office contacts listed in the beginning of this document. The EPA Docket Office can be contacted at (202) 566-1744, and is located at EPA Docket Center Reading Room, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. The hours of operation at the EPA Docket Center are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday.

        CAA section 107(d) provides a process for air quality designations that involves recommendations by states, territories, and tribes to the EPA and responses from the EPA to those parties, prior to the EPA promulgating final area designations and boundaries. The EPA is not required under the CAA section 107(d) to seek public comment during the designation process, but we are electing to do so for these areas with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in order to gather additional information for the EPA to consider before making final designations for the specific areas addressed in the EPA's recent letters to states, territories, and tribes. The EPA invites public input on our responses to states regarding these areas during the 30-day comment period provided in this action. In order to receive full consideration, input from the public must be submitted to the docket by October 5, 2017. At this time, the EPA is not asking for public comments on areas beyond those areas that are the subject of this proposed action. This action and opportunity for public comment does not affect any rights or obligations of any state, territory, or tribe, or of the EPA, which might otherwise exist pursuant to the CAA section 107(d).
        Please refer to the ADDRESSES section in this document for specific instructions on submitting comments and locating relevant public documents.

        For some cases, the EPA has indicated to a state or territory that further discussion is needed—e.g., where the state recommended a designation of unclassifiable/attainment (or unclassifiable) and available air quality monitoring or modeling data show that the area may be violating the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS or contain sources that may be contributing to air quality in a nearby area that may be violating the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. In establishing nonattainment area boundaries for a particular area, the EPA is required to include within the boundaries both the area that does not meet the standard and any nearby area contributing to the area that does not meet the standard. We are particularly interested in receiving comments, supported by relevant information, if you believe that a specific geographic area for which further discussion is needed concerning a state's recommended designation of unclassifiable/attainment or unclassifiable (and for which available air quality data would require a modification of the recommended designation) should not be categorized by the CAA section 107(d) criteria as nonattainment, or if you believe that a specific nearby area for which the EPA does agree with a state's recommended designation of unclassifiable/attainment or unclassifiable should in fact be categorized as contributing to nonattainment using the CAA section 107(d) criteria. Please be as specific as possible in supporting your views.
        • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
        • Explain your views as clearly as possible.
        • Provide your input by the comment period deadline identified.

        The EPA intends to complete designations for the areas subject to this round no later than December 31, 2017. The EPA is not yet prepared to respond to state and tribal area designation recommendations, or seek public input thereon, for areas that will be designated in Round 4 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The EPA is required to address those areas by December 31, 2020. Additional information on the EPA's intended approach for addressing designations for all areas can be found on the EPA's SO2 implementation Web site at https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/applying-or-implementing-sulfur-dioxide-standards.

        B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
        1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI information to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Tiffany Purifoy, OAQPS CBI Officer, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail Code C404-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-0878, email at purifoy.tiffany@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003.
        2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

        • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
        • Follow directions.
        • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
        C. Where can I find additional information for this rulemaking?

        The EPA has also established a Web site for this rulemaking at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations. The Web site includes the state, territorial and tribal recommendations, the EPA's intended area designations, information supporting the EPA's preliminary designation decisions, as well as the rulemaking actions and other related information that the public may find useful.
        III. What is the 2010 SO2 NAAQS and what are the health concerns that it addresses?

        The Administrator signed a final rule revising the primary SO2 NAAQS on June 2, 2010. The rule was published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520) and became effective on August 23, 2010. Specifically, the EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard at a level of 75 ppb, which is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. 40 CFR 50.17(a) and (b). Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO2, ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array of adverse respiratory effects including bronchoconstriction and increased asthma symptoms. Studies also show a connection between short-term exposure and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory illnesses, particularly in at-risk populations including children, the elderly, and asthmatics.6

            6 See 75 FR 35520 at 35525, June 22, 2010.

        IV. What are the CAA requirements for air quality designations and what action has the EPA taken to meet these requirements?

        After the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required to designate all areas of the country as either “nonattainment,” “attainment,” or “unclassifiable,” for that NAAQS pursuant to section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. As part of these Round 3 designations, EPA is implementing its interpretation of statutory terms under CAA section 107(d) nationwide and is basing these designations on EPA's nationwide analytical approach and technical analysis, including evaluation of monitoring data and air quality modeling, applied to the available evidence for each area.
        Regarding statutory definitions and the EPA's interpretations of such, the section 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA defines a nonattainment area as an area that does not meet the NAAQS or that contributes to a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. An attainment area is defined by the CAA as any area that meets the NAAQS and does not contribute to a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. Unclassifiable areas are defined by the CAA as those that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS.

        In this action, the EPA defines a nonattainment area as an area that the EPA has determined violates the 2010 SO2 NAAQS or contributes to a violation in a nearby area, based on the most recent 3 years of air quality monitoring data, appropriate dispersion modeling analysis, and any other relevant information. In this action, an unclassifiable/attainment area is defined by EPA as an area that either: (1) Based on available information including (but not limited to) appropriate modeling analyses and/or monitoring data, EPA has determined (i) meets the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and (ii) does not contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS; or (2) was not required to be characterized under 40 CFR 51.1203(c) or (d) and EPA does not have available information including (but not limited to) appropriate modeling analyses and/or monitoring data that suggests that the area may (i) not be meeting the NAAQS, or (ii) contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. In this action, an unclassifiable area is defined by the EPA as an area that either: (1) Was required to be characterized by the state under 40 CFR 51.1203(c) or (d), has not been previously designated, and on the basis of available information cannot be classified as either: (i) Meeting or not meeting the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, or (ii) contributing or not contributing to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS; or (2) was not required to be characterized under 40 CFR 51.1203(c) or (d) and the EPA does have available information including (but not limited to) appropriate modeling analyses and/or monitoring data that suggests that the area may (i) not be meeting the NAAQS, or (ii) contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS.

        These definitions refer to 40 CFR 51.1203(c) and (d), which are part of EPA's Data Requirements Rule. The citation to these CFR sections is in effect a reference to any area that contains a source, generally one emitting more than 2,000 tons per year of SO2 or was otherwise listed under the DRR, with respect to which the state has indicated that it will comply with the Data Requirements Rule either by establishing a new monitoring network or by submitting an air quality modeling analysis.

        This nationwide analytical approach also includes but is not limited to: (1) EPA's interpretations of other terms in the context of Round 3 of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS; (2) the appropriate basis for characterizing the air quality of an area; (3) the five-factor analysis to determine the boundaries for each air quality area under the NAAQS; and (4) the methodology for appropriately characterizing SO2 air quality through monitoring or modeling.

        The EPA notes that CAA section 107(d) provides the agency with discretion to determine how best to interpret the terms in the definition of a nonattainment area (e.g., “contributes to” and “nearby”) for a new or revised NAAQS, given considerations such as the nature of a specific pollutant, the types of sources that may contribute to violations, the form of the standards for the pollutant, and other relevant information. In particular, the EPA's position is that the statute does not require the agency to establish bright line tests or thresholds for what constitutes “contribution” or “nearby” for purposes of designations.7

            7 This view was confirmed in Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

        Similarly, the EPA's position is that the statute permits the EPA to evaluate the appropriate application of the term “area” to include geographic areas based upon full or partial county boundaries, as may be appropriate for a particular NAAQS. For example, CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii) explicitly provides that the EPA can make modifications to designation recommendations for an area “or portions thereof,” and under CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(iv) a designation remains in effect for an area “or portion thereof” until the EPA redesignates it.
        By no later than 1 year after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, CAA section 107(d)(1)(A) provides that each state governor is required to recommend air quality designations, including the appropriate boundaries for areas, to the EPA.8
           The EPA reviews those recommendations and is authorized to make any modifications the Administrator deems necessary. The statute does not define the term “necessary,” but the EPA interprets this to authorize the Administrator to modify designations that did not meet the statutory requirements or were otherwise inconsistent with the facts or analysis deemed appropriate by the Administrator. If the EPA is considering modifications to a recommendation, we are required by CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii) to notify the state of any such intended modifications not less than 120 days prior to our promulgation of the final designation. These notifications are commonly known as the “120-day letters.” During this period, if the state or territory does not agree with the EPA's modification, it has an opportunity to respond to the EPA and to demonstrate why it believes the modification proposed by the EPA is inappropriate. If a state or territory fails to provide any recommendation for an area, in whole or in part, the EPA still must promulgate a designation that the Administrator deems appropriate, pursuant to CAA section 107(d)(1)(B)(ii). While CAA section 107(d) specifically addresses the designations process between the EPA and states and territories, the EPA intends to follow the same process to the extent practicable for tribes that submitted designation recommendations.

            8 Tribes are invited to submit recommendations following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but are not required to do so.

        V. What guidance has the EPA previously issued and how does the EPA now intend to apply the statutory requirements to determine area designations and boundaries?
        In the notice of proposed rulemaking for the revised SO2 NAAQS (74 FR 64810; December 8, 2009), the EPA issued proposed guidance on our approach to implementing the standard, including our approach to initial area designations. The EPA solicited comment on that guidance and, in the notice of final rulemaking (75 FR 35520; June 22, 2010), provided further guidance concerning implementation of the standard and how to identify nonattainment areas and boundaries for the SO2 NAAQS. Subsequently, on March 24, 2011, the EPA provided additional designations guidance to assist states with making their recommendations for area designations and boundaries.9

           That guidance recommended, among other things, that monitoring data from the most recent 3 consecutive years be used to identify a violation of the SO2 NAAQS. This is appropriate because the form of the SO2 NAAQS is calculated as a 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum SO2 concentrations (specifically the most recent 3 consecutive years). The EPA based the first round of final SO2 designations in 2013 solely on violating monitored SO2 concentrations for the years 2010-2012 from Federal Reference Method and Federal Equivalent Method monitors that are sited and operated in accordance with 40 CFR parts 50 and 58, and did not at that time designate any other areas.

            9 See, “Area Designations for the 2010 Revised Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” memorandum to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, from Stephen D. Page, dated March 24, 2011.

        In the March 24, 2011, guidance, the EPA stated that the perimeter of a county containing a violating monitor would be the initial presumptive boundary for nonattainment areas, but also stated that the state, tribe and/or the EPA could conduct additional area-specific analyses that could justify establishing either a larger or smaller area. The EPA indicated that the following factors should be considered in an analysis of whether to exclude portions of a county and whether to include additional nearby areas outside the county as part of the designated nonattainment area: (1) Air quality data; (2) emissions-related data; (3) meteorology; (4) geography/topography; and (5) jurisdictional boundaries, as well as other available data. States and tribes may identify and evaluate other relevant factors or circumstances specific to a particular area.

        Following entry of the March 2, 2015, court order setting forth the schedule for the EPA to complete SO2 designations, the EPA issued updated designations guidance.10

           This guidance superseded the March 24, 2011, designation guidance for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and identified factors that the EPA intended to evaluate in determining whether areas are in violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS or contribute to air quality in nearby areas that are in violation of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The guidance also contained the factors the EPA intended to evaluate in determining the boundaries for all remaining areas in the country, consistent with the court's order and schedule. These factors include: (1) Air quality characterization via ambient monitoring or dispersion modeling results; (2) emissions-related data; (3) meteorology; (4) geography and topography; and (5) jurisdictional boundaries.11

            10 See, “Updated Guidance for Area Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” memorandum to Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, from Stephen D. Page, dated March 20, 2015.

            11 The EPA supplemented this guidance with documents first made available to states and other interested parties in 2013 and updated in 2016. See SO2 NAAQS Designations Source-Oriented Monitoring Technical Assistance Document (February 2016), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2monitoringtad.pdf, and SO2 NAAQS Designations Modeling Technical Assistance Document (August 2016), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/so2modelingtad.pdf.

        On March 8, 2017, the EPA issued a memo to clarify what version of the AERMOD modeling system is the most appropriate for consideration by the agency in the SO2 designations process.12

            12 See “Clarification on the AERMOD Modeling System Version for Use in SO2 Implementation Efforts and Other Regulatory Actions,” memorandum to EPA Regional Air Division Directors from Richard A. Wayland, dated March 8, 2017. This memo is available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/SO
            2
            _DRR_Designation_Modeling_Clarification_Memo-03082017.pdf.

        VI. What air quality information has the EPA used for these intended designations?
        For designations for the SO2 NAAQS, air agencies have the flexibility to characterize air quality using either appropriately sited ambient air quality monitors or modeling of actual or allowable source emissions.

        These intended designations are based on the EPA's application of the nationwide analytical approach to, and preliminary technical assessment of, the weight of evidence for each area, including but not limited to available air quality monitoring data and air quality modeling results. With respect to air quality monitoring data, the EPA has considered data from at least the most recent 3 calendar years, i.e., 2014-2016, as available. In most of the modeling runs available for EPA's review, the impacts of the actual emissions for one or more of the 3-year periods 2012-2014, 2013-2015, or 2014-2016 were considered, and in some cases the modeling was of recently effective or not-yet-effective limits on allowable emissions in lieu of or as a supplement to modeling of actual emissions. The 1-hour primary SO2 standard is violated at an ambient air quality monitoring site (or in the case of dispersion modeling, at an ambient air quality receptor location) when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations exceeds 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50.
        VII. How do the Round 3 designations affect Indian country?

        For areas of Indian country, there are no violating monitors. The Navajo Nation submitted modeling analyses for the areas around two SO2 emission sources located in the Navajo Nation, the Navajo Generating Station and the Four Corners Power Plant, neither of which indicated a violation of the NAAQS. The Navajo Nation and the lands of the Hopi Tribe are being designated as separate areas. No areas of Indian country are being designated as nonattainment as part of this round. Any other parts of Indian country being designated as unclassifiable/attainment or unclassifiable are being designated along with the surrounding state area.
        VIII. Where can I find information forming the basis for this intended rule and exchanges between the EPA, states, and tribes related to this intended rule?
        Information providing the basis for this intended action are provided in a technical support document (TSD) 13

           included in the docket. The TSD, modeling files, technical assistance documents, applicable EPA guidance memoranda, and copies of correspondence regarding this process between the EPA and the states, territories, tribes, and other parties, are available for review at the public docket for these SO2 designations at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0003, at the EPA Docket Center listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document and on the agency's SO2 Designations Web site at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations. Area-specific questions can be addressed to the EPA Regional offices (see contact information provided at the beginning of this document).

            13 The single TSD for this action consists of a few sections with information that applies to all affected areas or to certain groups of areas with some common features, and many sections that are specific to individual states, territories, or tribal areas. For convenience, the term “TSD” is also used generically to refer to these state/territory/tribe-specific sections. For informational purposes, these individual state/territory/tribe-specific sections/TSDs are available for separate downloading from the indicated EPA Web site.

          Dated: August 22, 2017.
          Mary E. Henigin,
          Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards.

      [FR Doc. 2017-18423 Filed 9-1-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 63
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406, FRL-8266-8]
        RIN 2060-AM74
        National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities, and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          EPA is announcing that the comment period on the proposed rule amendments for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities, and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities, published on November 9, 2006, is being extended until February 8, 2007.

          DATES:

            Comments. Comments on the proposed amendments published on November 9, 2006 (71 FR 66064) must be received on or before February 8, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406, by one of the following methods:
          • www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

          • Fax: (202) 566-1741.
          • Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
          • Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments to: Air and Radiation Docket (6102T), EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742.

          Note:

          The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on docket operations, locations, and telephone numbers. The Docket Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for submitting comments to www.regulations.gov are not affected by the flooding and will remain the same.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            General and Technical Information: Mr. Stephen Shedd, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5397, facsimile number (919) 685-3195, electronic mail (e-mail) address: shedd.steve@epa.gov.

            Economic Analysis Information: Mr. Art Rios, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Benefit and Cost Group (C339-01), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-4883, facsimile number (919) 541-0839, electronic mail (e-mail) address: Rios.Arturo@epamail.epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include:

            Category
            NAICSa

            Examples of regulated entities

            Industry
            324110493190
              486910
              424710
              447110
              447190

            Operations at area sources that transfer and store gasoline, including bulk terminals, bulk plants, pipeline facilities, and gasoline dispensing facilities.

            Federal/State/ local/tribal governments

            a North American Industry Classification System.

        This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.480 and 40 CFR 60.590. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of the proposed amendments to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.

        If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the proposed amendments is available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of the proposed amendments will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
        Comment Period
        We received a request to extend the public comment period to February 8, 2007. We agreed to this request, therefore, the public comment period will now end on February 8, 2007, rather than January 8, 2007.
        How Can I Get Copies of the Proposed Amendments and Other Related Information?

        The proposed rule National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities, and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities was published on November 9, 2006 (71 FR 66064). EPA has established the official public docket for the proposed rulemaking under docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0406. Information on how to access the docket is presented above in the ADDRESSES section.

          Dated: January 3, 2007.
          William L. Wehrum,
          Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

      [FR Doc. E7-19 Filed 1-5-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
        49 CFR Chapter X
        [Docket No. EP 738]
        Regulatory Reform Task Force

          AGENCY:
          Surface Transportation Board.

          ACTION:
          Announcement of Regulatory Reform Task Force listening session.

          SUMMARY:
          Notice is hereby given of a listening session for the Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF).

          DATES:
          The listening session will be held on Tuesday, July 25, 2017, at 10 a.m. E.D.T.

          ADDRESSES:
          The listening session will be held in the Hearing Room on the first floor of the Board's headquarters at 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Rachel D. Campbell (202) 245-0357; Rachel.Campbell@stb.gov. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: (800) 877-8339].

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The RRTF was established to comply with the spirit of Exec. Order No. 13,777, 82 FR 12285 (Mar. 1, 2017), and to move forward ongoing agency regulatory and process review initiatives. The RRTF's mission is to identify rules and practices that are burdensome, unnecessary, or outdated, and to recommend how they should be addressed. On May 25, 2017, the RRFT submitted its first status report, which is available for viewing on the Board's Web site at https://www.stb.gov/stb/about/RRTF.html. As detailed in that memo, the RRTF has identified some initial actions to pursue. However, given the direct impact of the Board's regulations upon its stakeholders, the RRTF believes that reviewing its regulations is best conducted with input from its stakeholders.
        For that reason, the RRTF will hold a listening session that will be open to the public. Members of the RRTF will be present at the listening session, which will be on the record with a transcript prepared. The RRTF will release the transcript following the listening session. Interested persons not able to attend may provide written comments by July 25, 2017. Written comments should reference Docket No. EP 738, and should be addressed to: Regulatory Reform Task Force, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. Submitted comments will become part of the record.

          Decided: June 20, 2017.

          By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
          Brendetta S. Jones,
          Clearance Clerk.

      [FR Doc. 2017-13131 Filed 6-22-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [FRL-7896-9]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent for partial deletion of the surface soils of the South Tacoma Field (STF) Operable Unit of the Commencement Bay—South Tacoma Channel Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10, announces its intent to delete the Surface Soils of the South Tacoma Field (“STF”) from National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State of Washington (State) through Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) have determined that appropriate remedial actions relating to the surface soils portion of the STF have been implemented. This partial deletion pertains only to the surface soils portion of the STF and does not include the other portions of the Site.

          The purpose of the proposed deletion of the surface soils portion of the STF is to remove remediated property from the NPL, thereby making the land more readily available for beneficial reuse. EPA has compiled all relevant information and supporting documentation in the administrative record for this determination. The administrative record is available for review as noted below.

          DATES:
          Comments concerning the proposed partial deletion of the STF from the NPL may be submitted on or before May 11, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be mailed to: Kris Flint, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, ECL-111, Seattle, Washington 98101.

            Other Contact Information: phone: 206/553-8155, fax: 206 553-0124, e-mail: flint.kris@epa.gov.

          The Administrative Record for the proposed decision provides comprehensive information and is on file at the Region 10 Superfund Records Center and the information repository. Information on the site and a copy of the deletion docket is available for viewing at the Information Repositories which are located at: Tacoma Public Library, 1102 Tacoma Avenue South, Tacoma, Washington 98402, (253) 591-5622; and at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Superfund Records Center, 1200 Sixth Avenue, ECL-076, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone: (206) 553-4494.
          Review must be arranged by appointment between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Beverly Gaines, EPA Point of Contact, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, ECL-110, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone: (206) 553-1066, fax: (206) 553-0124, e-mail: gaines.beverly@epa.gov .

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

        I. Introduction

        The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 announces its intent to delete the surface soils of the South Tacoma Field Operable Unit of the Commencement Bay—South Tacoma Channel Superfund Site located in Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests comment on this proposal. The groundwater portion of the site remains on the NPL for additional monitoring and possible remedial action. The NPL constitutes appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. This partial deletion of the STF is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites listed on the National Priorities List 60 FR 55466 (November 1, 1995). EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete the STF for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
        EPA and Ecology have determined that remedial action of the surface soils portion of STF has been successfully completed. A summary of cleanup activities conducted can be found in the Final Closeout Report for Soils which is available in the information repositories and on the Region 10 web-page.
        Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the soils portion of the STF and explains how the site meets the deletion criteria.
        II. NPL Deletion Criteria
        The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate to protect human health or the environment. In making such a determination, EPA, in consultation with the State, considers whether the following criteria have been met: § 300.425(e)(1). Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; § 300.425(e)(1)(i). All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented; § 300.425(e)(1)(ii). The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate; § 300.425(e)(1)(iii).
        Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for subsequent Fund-financed actions at the area deleted if future site conditions warrant such actions. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP provides that Fund-financed actions may be taken at sites that have been deleted from the NPL.
        A partial deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect or impede EPA's ability to conduct CERCLA response activities at areas not deleted and remaining on the NPL. In addition, deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not affect the liability of responsible parties or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts.
        Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any person's rights or obligations. Partial deletion of STF soils from the NPL will not affect the status of STF soils on any Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) lists and does not preclude Ecology from conducting future investigations or requiring response actions under State law on any portion of the site.
        III. Deletion Procedures
        The following procedures were used for the intended partial deletion of this Site:

        (1) The responsible parties for the STF implemented all of the required response actions for contaminated soils including excavation, removal, stabilization, consolidation, capping, confirmational sampling, placement of institutional controls, and post-remedial maintenance and monitoring. STF soils are mapped according to a grid system designed to clearly show interested parties where certain institutional controls apply (e.g., for land restricted to industrial use, written development plan must be reviewed by EPA).
        (2) The State of Washington through Ecology concurred with the proposed deletion decision in a letter dated March 3, 2005.
        (3) Concurrent with this national notice of intention to delete, a public notice will also appear in a local newspaper. Additionally, notice has been distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local officials and other interested parities to announce commencement of a 30-day public comment period on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete.
        (4) All relevant documents have been compiled in the site deletion docket and are available in the site file, as noted above.
        Deletion of the STF from the NPL does not in itself, create, alter or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of the site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, NCP § 300.425(e)(3).
        For deletion of this STF, EPA's Regional Office will accept and evaluate public comments on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the Agency will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received.

        A partial deletion occurs when the Regional Administrator places a final notice in the Federal Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect deletions in the final update following the notice. Public notices and copies of the Responsiveness Summary will be made available to local residents at the Regional Office.
        IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
        The following summary provides the Agency's rationale for the proposal to delete surface soils at the STF from the NPL.
        Site Background and History
        In 1981 the Commencement Bay Site was listed on the National Priorities List. In a Record of Decision (ROD), dated September 8, 1983, the Agency divided the Commencement Bay Site into smaller, individual sites, one of which became the South Tacoma Channel Superfund Site. The South Tacoma Channel Site consists of three operable units; South Tacoma Field, Well 12A, and Tacoma Municipal Landfill. The STF operable unit is located in Tacoma, Pierce County, Washington. Within the city of Tacoma, the STF is located approximately between South 36th Street to the north and South 56th Street to the south, and between Tyler Way on the west and Adams Street on the east.
        The STF is approximately 260 acres that have been used for a variety of industrial and commercial purposes for more than 100 years. The area is lower than surrounding upland areas by as much as 150 feet on the west. Currently, the STF is mostly a grassed, open field with a few industrial and commercial facilities. The site includes a former swamp and lake bed that has been filled and covered over time. There is a small wetland in this area, along with an open stormwater channel along the west and north sides of the site. The site is currently zoned for commercial/industrial use with the exception of an 18-acre strip along the western border which is zoned for residential-commercial transitional use. The western side of STF, near the old airport, is also used for casual recreation.
        A variety of industrial and commercial operations have occupied different portions of the STF in the past 100 years. The South Tacoma Car Shops area operated as a railroad equipment manufacturing, repair and maintenance facility from 1892 to 1974. Rail cars were also cleaned and dismantled. Foundry facilities operated on-site from 1890 through 1980. An iron foundry produced iron wheels until 1957. A brass foundry produced journal bearings composed primarily of lead, tin, copper, zinc and antimony until 1980. Aircraft maintenance and refueling operations were performed at the South Tacoma Airport from 1936 to 1973. A lake was located beyond the south end of the former runway and, in the late 1940's, was used by seaplanes. In addition, foundry, construction, and domestic wastes reportedly were disposed of as fill material in the Former Swamp/Lakebed area. In the 1930's and 1940's portions of the STF reportedly were used as unauthorized dumping areas for household and commercial wastes. More recent occupation of the STF includes Tacoma Public Utilities at the northern end and Pioneer Builders Supply on the southeast corner.
        During remedial investigation (RI) contamination was identified in the former railroad maintenance area, at the Tacoma Public Utilities area, and at the Pioneer Builders Supply. Pioneer used two underground storage tanks (USTs) for about five years to store gasoline and diesel fuel. During tank excavation in 1991, petroleum contamination was discovered in surrounding soils. Also, in 1990 three other tanks were uncovered and removed.
        Selected Remedy

        The Record of Decision for the STF was signed September 29, 1994, and the remedies selected for each portion of the site addressed human health risks from exposure to contamination via soil ingestion or contact. The protectiveness of selected active remedies for soils (e.g., elimination and reduction of risk through excavation, removal, and or capping) is supplemented with institutional controls limiting future land use to commercial/industrial. No ROD amendments have been warranted for soil remediation.
        EPA's ROD summarizes a human health risk assessment (HHRA) conducted for this site during the RI/FS. The HHRA evaluated risks due to contamination in the soil as well as in groundwater, surface water and stormwater ditch. The routes of soil exposure considered in the HHRA included ingestion and skin contact for scenarios of industrial, residential and recreational use. The HHRA concluded that cleanup of the STF was necessary to prevent imminent and substantial endangerment to public health from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances.
        EPA's ROD listed the following primary cleanup objectives for soils. (1) Excavate soil “hot spots”, treat them on-site using solidification, consolidate and cap them. (2) Cap soils where contaminant concentrations exceeded the State's Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) criteria for industrial use. (3) Limit site use, and thus human exposure, strictly to industrial where contaminant concentrations fall between the MTCA criteria for industrial and residential uses. (4) Where the STF was zoned for residential/commercial use and contaminant concentrations exceeded the MTCA criteria for residential use, soils were to be cleaned up as prescribed in MTCA. The following table summarizes the numeric cleanup criteria and the required remedial action.

            Remedial action level
            Arsenic (mg/kg)

            Lead (mg/kg)

            Total carcinogenic
              PAHs
              (mg/kg)

            Total PCBs 1

              PAHs
              (mg/kg)

            Copper (mg/kg)

            Remedial action for soil (mg/kg)

            Hotspot (concentrations at & higher than these levels)
            570
            18,000
            50
            50
            45,000
            Excavate, stabilize, consolidate on-site and cap.

            IN BETWEEN . . . Capping & Hotspot
            Excavate, consolidate, and cap on-site. Institutional controls implemented to limiting land use, safe development, and public education. With capping materials in place, soils meet State criteria for industrial use.

            Capping (at these concentrations)
            200
            1,000
            20
            10

            Cap in place.

            IN BETWEEN . . . MTCA & Capping
            Soils meet State criteria for industrial use, institutional controls needed for limiting land use, ensuring safe development, and educating public about the STF.

            MTCA Residential 1

              2 20

              3 250

              3 1

              3 1
            2,960

            1 At Tacoma City Light Dry Wells (north end of STF), soil concentrations exceeding 50 mg/kg total PCBs and at/or exceeding 0.13 mg/kg endrin were excavated for incineration off site.

            2 Source: Table 9-3 of EPA 1994 ROD. Table 9-3 also shows MTCA residential use levels for the following: aluminum (80,000 mg/kg); antimony (32 mg/kg); beryllium (0.23 mg/kg); manganese (11,200 mg/kg); zinc (24,000 mg/kg); aldrin (0.059 mg/kg); 3-3-dichlorobenzidine (2.2 mg/kg); and pentachlorophenol (8.3 mg/kg).

            3 Source: Table 9-3 of EPA 1994 ROD. These are MTCA Method A.

        A groundwater study confirmed that inorganic metals leaching from contaminated soils did not pose a threat to groundwater. Total lead was chosen as the indicator chemical in this study due the high volume and concentrations of lead-contaminated soil at the STF. Consequently, lead concentrations in groundwater continues to be monitored by the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) at locations across the site, particularly where contaminated soils are consolidated. No increase has been found, but monitoring will continue after the partial deletion.
        Remedy Implementation for Soils
        On January 14, 1997, a Consent Decree (CD) was filed and bound the settling defendants to perform the remedies selected in the ROD and to select a supervising contractor. The CD requirements include further sampling for remedial design, actual cleanup and confirmational sampling, implementing institutional controls, and a long-term maintenance and monitoring program.
        Tacoma City Light was the party responsible for PCB-contaminated dry wells at the north end of the STF. Tacoma City Light initiated this cleanup in August 1997, and completed cleanup in January 1998, prior to the beginning of remedial action on the remainder of the site in June 1998. Tacoma City Light's primary cleanup objective for the dry wells was to remove all contaminated soils exceeding MTCA concentrations for residential use which was a more aggressive cleanup than selected for the rest of the site in the ROD. City Light excavated soils with PCB concentrations above 1 mg/kg and endrin concentrations above 0.13 mg/kg and transported them off-site for incineration.
        The remaining remedial action (RA) activities at the STF began in June 1998. The following work was conducted in accordance with the ROD and the CERCLA CD.

        (1) Approximately 6,300 tons of soil exceeding hot-spot concentrations were excavated and treated (i.e., stabilized with a phosphate-based reagent). These soils were consolidated on-site and covered with a clean soil cap at the north end of the STF.
        (2) At Pioneer Builders Supply 15.4 tons of soil with PCBs exceeding 50 mg/kg were excavated and disposed of off-site.
        (3) 113,607 tons of soil with contaminant concentrations between the capping and hot-spot concentrations were consolidated and capped.
        (4) An estimated 13.7 acres of the STF was capped (approximately 5% of 260 total acres).
        (5) Buried tanks, drums and contents were removed and disposed. Associated contaminated soils and solid wastes were also removed and disposed at a permitted facility.
        (6) Sub-surface soils contaminated over capping-level concentrations were capped where excavation and consolidation were not cost-effective and became subject to institutional control.

        (7) Institutional controls prohibiting residential development and limiting exposure were installed (e.g., drinking water restrictions, vegetation planting/maintenance on caps, fencing, grid markers for surveying integrity of capped areas over time, future development limitations to protect and/or supplement capped areas). These are implemented through the CD and restrictive covenants.
        (8) During construction, air was monitored to assess airborne contaminant concentrations in the work area and at site boundaries.
        Operation and Maintenance
        The 1997 CD requires the Settling Defendants to perform inspections and necessary actions for long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) of the remedy. The first annual O&M report, received in 2000, identified a number of issues for further monitoring and/or resolution, such as minor settling on one cap and subsequent stormwater ponding. Since the first year, maintenance has consisted of re-locating grid markers, replacing lost marker tags, monitoring public access areas for erosion, maintaining fences/gates, and monitoring/replacing vegetation to prevent wind/water erosion. Semi-annual monitoring has been effective in preserving the integrity of capped areas and consolidated/capped areas of the STF.
        Settling defendants are responsible under the CD for continuing both O&M and institutional control work after soils are partially deleted; although, the CD allows EPA to reduce O&M requirements if future developments warrant. For example, when fill is added to a capped area to provide a level foundation for building slabs, EPA may determine it is no longer necessary to monitor vegetation and erosion for that location.
        Five-Year Reviews
        The first Five-Year Review Report for this STF was completed in June 2003. It determined the implemented remedies continue to protect human health and the environment and that additional protective measures are not needed. Three key findings relevant to the soil remedies at STF are summarized below.
        (1) The selected remedy for contaminated soils (clean capping) is working and meets the goals specified in the ROD. Institutional controls are in place and effective as evidenced by frequent inquiries from developers interested in various portions of the site. Consolidation of “hot-spot” contamination with thick cap coverage is protective and will remain so as long as commitments to the integrity of caps and fences are kept. General groundwater monitoring associated with soil contamination or consolidation shows no change has occurred and inorganic metals, based on the indicator of total lead, is not posing a threat to groundwater.
        (2) The assumptions, data, cleanup levels and cleanup objectives used at the time of the remedies are still valid. Although Ecology modified MTCA substantially in 2001, the modifications to the industrial standards do not affect the protectiveness of the soil remedies prescribed in the 1994 ROD.

        (3) Between issuance of the ROD in 1994 and the First Five-Year Review in 2003, no other information has come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy for human health and the environment. The remedies at STF for soil and general groundwater protection are protective of human health and the environment in both short and long term.
        The First Five Year Review Report for STF found that remedial action objectives for soil cleanup had been met and that the soil remedies were protective of human health. The second Five-Year Review Report for STF is scheduled for 2008 when Region 10 will once again address these questions.
        Institutional Controls
        After remedial actions were completed in 1999, EPA approved the Site Development and Institutional Controls Plan (SDICP) which was developed in accordance with the CD. The SDICP requires parties interested in developing portions of the STF to contact EPA for concurrence with those plans. Since 1999, EPA has entertained several inquiries related to different types of development on portions of the site. As standard procedure, EPA's role in these interactions is to: (a) Answer questions via phone or e-mail; (b) encourage interested parties to obtain and read a copy of the SDICP; (c) provide oral history of the site, explaining the Superfund process in general and the SDICP in particular; (d) assist parties reviewing the EPA site file (appointments, questions/answers); and (e) address written development proposals as provided by interested parties.
        In general, institutional controls at this site fall into two categories: proprietary controls, such as restrictive covenants for access and drinking water use; and enforcement controls, such as CD requirements for receiving EPA approval on development plans at certain areas of the site. In addition, while not required by the ROD, governmental controls, such as zoning requirements limit the type of land use.
        Since RA has been completed for the soils, the focus of STF Site management is assuring potential developers understand the SDICP and how institutional controls may affect their plans. Section 3 of the SDICP highlights and clearly explains how the limitations and requirements associated with developing any portion of the STF will work, in terms of dealing with any remaining soil contamination, transferring property, allowing access, etc. Some redevelopment has already occurred and new development inquiries continue, indicating that institutional controls are working and will allow redevelopment in a manner that protects both the soil remedies and human health.
        Community Involvement
        Since the remedy was completed in 1999, the public has not demonstrated particular interest in the STF except for questions related to commercial/industrial development (see below). For issuance of the First Five-Year Review Report, EPA published a notice for conducting the review in the Tacoma News Tribune (February 24, 2003) and sent approximately 215 notices to addressees on the public mailing list for this site. Only one citizen responded by calling to learn more about the soil remedy based on concerns about eating wild blackberries from, and walking dogs on, unoccupied portions of the STF. Staff from the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD) and Ecology also contacted Region 10 with technical input for the review. A second notice to the community was mailed at the end of the Five-Year Review process with notification that the remedies are still protective.

        This Notice of Intent to Partially Delete the soils portion of the STF and a complete copy of the Final Closeout Report/Soils will be posted to the Region 10 EPA web-page where the First Five-Year Review Report is also available. Concurrent with this Federal Register Notice of Intention to Delete, public notice is also being published in the Tacoma News Tribune. Individual notices and a brief fact sheet will be sent to the mailing list for the site.
        State Concurrence
        One of the three criteria for site deletion specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if “responsible parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required.” In concurrence with the State of Washington, provided to EPA on March 3, 2005, EPA believes that this criterion for deletion of soils at the STF Site has been met. EPA is proposing partial deletion of this site from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are available from the docket in the file.

          Dated: March 30, 2005.
          Ronald A. Kreizenbeck,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

      [FR Doc. 05-7230 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No.040311088-4088-01; I.D. 030104A]
        RIN 0648-AQ81
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Proposed 2004 Specifications for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes specifications for the spiny dogfish fishery for the 2004 fishing year, which is May 1, 2004, through April 30, 2005.  The implementing regulations for the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) require NMFS to publish specifications for the upcoming fishing year and to provide an opportunity for public comment.  The intent of this rulemaking is to specify the commercial quota and other management measures, such as possession limits, to rebuild the spiny dogfish resource.

          DATES:
          Public comments must be received (see ADDRESSES) no later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time on April 2, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments on the proposed specifications should be sent to Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298.  Mark on the outside of the envelope, “Comments--2004 Spiny Dogfish Specifications.”  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9135.  Comments on the specifications may be submitted by e-mail.  The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments is DOGAQ81@noaa.gov.  Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier:  “Comments-2004 Dogfish specifications.”

          Copies of supporting documents used by the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee and the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee; the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA); and the Essential Fish Habitat Assessment (EFHA) are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Federal Building, Room 2115, 300 South Street, Dover, DE 19904.  The EA, RIR, IRFA and EFHA are accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov./ro/doc/nero.html.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Eric Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978)281-9259, fax (978)281-9135, e-mail eric.dolin@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Spiny dogfish were declared overfished by NMFS on April 3, 1998, and added to that year's list of overfished stocks in the Report on the Status of the Fisheries of the United States, prepared pursuant to section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  Consequently, the Magnuson-Stevens Act required the preparation of measures to end overfishing and to rebuild the spiny dogfish stock.  A joint FMP was developed by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils (Councils) during 1998 and 1999.  The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) was designated as the administrative lead on the FMP.
        The regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR part 648, subpart L, outline the process for specifying annually the commercial quota and other management measures (e.g., minimum or maximum fish sizes, seasons, mesh size restrictions, possession limits, and other gear restrictions) for the spiny dogfish fishery to achieve the annual target F specified in the FMP.  The target F for the 2004 fishing year is not to exceed 0.08.
        The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee), comprised of representatives from states, MAFMC staff, New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) staff, NMFS staff and two non-voting, ex-officio industry representatives (one each from the MAFMC and NEFMC regions) is required to review annually the best available information and to recommend a commercial quota and other management measures necessary to achieve the target F for the upcoming fishing year.  The Council's Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee (Joint Committee) then considers the Monitoring Committee's recommendations and any public comment in making its recommendation to the two Councils.  Afterwards, the MAFMC and the NEFMC make their recommendations to NMFS.  NMFS reviews those recommendations to assure they are consistent with the target F level, and publishes proposed measures for public comment.
        Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee Recommendations
        The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee (Monitoring Committee) met in Baltimore on September 10, 2003, to review the stock assessment results and develop quota and possession limit recommendations for the 2004 fishing year.  The Monitoring Committee reviewed the recent stock assessment for spiny dogfish (37th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) -- September 2003), which concluded that the spiny dogfish stock is overfished and overfishing is not occurring. Estimated fishing mortality in 2002 was F = 0.09 and is near the threshold (F = 0.11) at which overfishing is deemed to occur. The female spawning portion of the biomass has declined by about 75 percent since 1988 and is at 29 percent of the biomass target. Estimates of the exploitable and total biomass in 2002 are about 140,000 mt and 371,000 mt, respectively, about half of the peak level observed in 1985.  Recent reductions in female spawning stock biomass cannot be replaced quickly due to the reproductive biology of spiny dogfish, and the current low level of female spawning stock biomass is expected to result in low recruitment for the next several years. Recruitment estimates from 1997 to 2003 represent the seven lowest values in the entire series.  Given low current female spawning biomass, poor recruitment and reduced pup survivorship, the SARC recommended that total removals (landings, discards, Canadian catch) should be lower than those derived from the estimated rebuilding F (0.03), and also urged that the targeting females should be avoided.
        The Monitoring Committee discussed potential management measures and adopted the MAFMC staff recommendation to maintain the status quo in 2004.  This would mean an annual incidental catch of 4 million lb (1.81 million kg) which would be divided into two semi-annual quota periods (quota period 1 = 2.316 million lb (1.05 million kg) and quota period 2 = 1.684 million lb (763,849 kg)), and possession limits of 600 lb (272 kg) for quota period 1 and 300 lb (136 kg) for quota period 2 (vessels are prohibited from landing more than the specified amount in any one calendar day).
        Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee Recommendations
        On October 7, 2003, the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee (Joint Committee) voted to set the 2004 quota at 8 million lb (3.62 million kg).  It also voted to have no possession limit in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), deferring to the states to establish possession limits.
        Alternatives Proposed by the Councils
        Following the Joint Committee meeting, on October 7, 2003, the MAFMC reviewed the Monitoring Committee and Joint Committee recommendations, and adopted recommended specifications for the 2004 fishing year.  Those specifications would set an annual quota of 4 million lb (1.81 million kg), to be divided into two semi-annual quota periods for the 2004 fishing year.  The quota for period 1 would be 2.316 million lb (1.05 million kg) and for period 2 would be 1.684 million lb (763,849 kg).  The MAFMC recommended that the possession limits for both quota periods not exceed 1,500 lb (680 kg). On October 21, 2003, the NEFMC reviewed the Monitoring Committee and Joint Committee recommendations, and voted to adopt a 4.4 million-lb (2 million-kg) quota for the 2004 fishing year,with a 1,500-lb (680-kg) possession limit for incidental catch.
        Alternative Adopted by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
        On December 17, 2003, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Spiny Dogfish and Coastal Shark Management Board approved specifications for the 2004-2005 fishing year, setting a 4-million-lb (1.81-million kg) annual quota, with possession limits of 600 lb (272 kg) in quota period 1 and 300 lb (136 kg) in quota period 2.  The ASMFC's specifications apply to state waters only.
        Proposed 2004 Measures

        NMFS reviewed both Councils' recommendations and concluded that maintaining the status quo, which is the same as the Monitoring Committee's recommendation, would better assure that the target F is not exceeded.  NMFS proposes a commercial spiny dogfish quota of 4 million lb (1.81 million kg) for the 2004 fishing year to be divided into two semi-annual periods as follows:  2,316,000 lb (1.05 million kg) for quota period 1 (May 1, 2004 - Oct. 31, 2004); and 1,684,000 lb (765,454 kg) for quota period 2 (Nov. 1, 2004 - April 30, 2005).  In addition, NMFS proposes to maintain possession limits of 600 lb (272 kg) for quota period 1, and 300 lb (136 kg) for quota period 2, to discourage a directed fishery.  The directed fishery has traditionally targeted large mature female spiny dogfish, the stock component that is most in need of protection and rebuilding.  Maintaining the limits of 600 lb (272 kg) and 300 lb (136 kg) for quota periods 1 and 2, respectively, would allow for the retention of spiny dogfish caught incidentally while fishing for other species, but discourage directed fishing and, therefore, provide protection for mature female spiny dogfish.
        Maintaining the status quo would also be consistent with the measures being implemented under the ASMFC's Interstate Fishery Management Plan in state waters.  This would have the benefit of establishing consistent management measures in Federal and state jurisdictions for the first time since the FMP was enacted.
        Classification
        This action is authorized by 50 CFR part 648 and has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        An IRFA was prepared that describes the 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 are contained at the beginning of this section of the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble.  A summary of the analysis follows.
        The small entities considered in the analysis include 255 vessels that have reported spiny dogfish landings to NMFS in 2002 (the most recent year for which there are vessel-specific data).  In addition, there are vessels that are not subject to the Federal reporting requirements because they fish exclusively in state waters.  Furthermore, there are a large number of vessels that have been issued Federal spiny dogfish permits, but have not fished for spiny dogfish (a total of 2,915 vessels were issued the permit in 2002).  It is presumed that these vessels are interested in the fishery but have chosen not to participate under the restrictive possession limits.  If any of these vessels should choose to participate in the upcoming fishing year, they might experience revenue increases associated with landings of spiny dogfish, but those increases cannot be estimated.
        The IRFA considered four alternatives.  The action recommended in this proposed rule includes a commercial quota of 4 million lb (1.81 million kg), and possession limits of 600 lb (272 kg) during quota period 1 and 300 lb (136 kg) during quota period 2.  Alternative 2 evaluates the MAFMC proposal of an annual bycatch quota of 4 million lb (1.81 million kg), to be divided into two semi-annual quota periods for the 2004 fishing year.  The quota for period 1 would be 2.316 million lb (1.05 million kg) and for period 2 would be 1.684 million lb (763,849 kg).  The possession limits for both quota periods would not exceed 1,500 lb (680 kg).  Alternative 3 evaluates the NEFMC proposal of an annual 4.4 million-lb (2 million-kg) quota for the 2004 fishing year, with a 1,500-lb (680-kg) possession limit for both periods.  Alternative 4 evaluates the impact of having no management measures (no action).
        The potential changes in 2004 revenues under the 4-million lb (1.81-million kg) quota were evaluated relative to landings and revenues derived during 2002:   4.76 million lb (2.2 million kg) of landings, valued at $970,000. The analysis is based on the last full fishing year of landings data and assumed that the revenues of the 255 vessels that landed spiny dogfish in 2002 would be reduced proportionately by the proposed action.  The reduction in overall gross revenues to the fishery as a whole was estimated to be about $155,200, or about $609 per vessel, compared to fishing year 2002.
        The proposed possession limits of 600 lb (272 kg) in quota period 1, and 300 lb (136 kg) in quota period 2 represent a continuation of the possession limits established for fishing year 2002 and would have no new impact.
        Under Alternative 2, the gross revenue impacts would be similar to impacts anticipated for Alternative 1 since the recommended quotas are identical. The possession limit, however, would increase to 1,500 lb (680 kg). The magnitude of increases in gross revenue associated with the larger possession limit is not known.  Recent possession limit analyses conducted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center suggested that trip-level profitability associated with landing spiny dogfish was marginal when 1,500 or fewer pounds of spiny dogfish were retained.  As such, an increase from status quo possession limits upward to 1,500 lb (680 kg) may not be expected to increase direct fishing for dogfish or provide significant increases in associated economic benefits.
        Under Alternative 3, the quota would be 4.4 million lb (2.2 million-kg). This represents a 7.5 percent decrease in landings relative to the landings in 2002.  The reduction in overall gross revenues to the fishery as a whole under this alternative was estimated to be about $72,750, or about $285 per vessel, compared to fishing year 2002.

        Under Alternative 4, which would implement no management measures, landings are projected to be 25 million lb (11.36 million kg) in 2003-2004.  This would constitute a 525 percent increase in fishing opportunity compared to the status quo (4.0 million pounds (1.81 million kg)) and a 425 percent increase in fishing opportunity compared to actual FY2002 landings (4.76 million lb (2.2 million kg)).  Although the short-term social and economic benefits of an unregulated fishery would be much greater than those associated with Alternatives 1 through 3, fishing mortality is expected to rise above the threshold level that allows the stock to replace itself (FREP = 0.11) such that stock rebuilding could not occur.  In the long term, unregulated harvest would lead to depletion of the spiny dogfish population which would eventually eliminate the spiny dogfish fishery altogether.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated:  March 12, 2004.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 04-6129  Filed 3-17-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P