        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 172 and 173
        [Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0025 (HM-264); Notice No. 2019-14]
        RIN 2137-AF40
        Hazardous Materials: Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail; Extension of Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; Extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          On October 24, 2019, PHMSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), entitled “Hazardous Materials: Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail (HM-264)” proposing changes to the Hazardous Materials Regulations to allow for the bulk transport of Methane, refrigerated liquid, commonly known as liquefied natural gas (LNG), in rail tank cars. In response to a request for an extension of the comment period from the Offices of the Attorneys General of New York and Maryland, PHMSA is extending the comment period for the HM-264 NPRM for an additional 21 days. Comments to the HM-264 NPRM will now be due January 13, 2020.

          DATES:
          Comments should be received on or before January 13, 2020. To the extent possible, PHMSA will consider late-filed comments.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0025 and may be submitted in the following ways:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery: To the Docket Management System; Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

            Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and Docket Number (PHMSA-2018-0025) for this notice at the beginning of the comment. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. All comments received will be posted without change to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) and will include any personal information you provide. If sent by mail, comments must be submitted in duplicate. Persons wishing to receive confirmation of receipt of their comments must include a self-addressed stamped postcard.

            Docket: For access to the dockets to read associated documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).

            Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its process. DOT posts these comments, without change, including any personal information the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

            Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” PHMSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Michael Ciccarone, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary that PHMSA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Michael Ciccarone, Standards and Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or Mark Maday, Federal Railroad Administration, (202) 366-2535, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        PHMSA, in consultation with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), published the HM-264 NPRM 1
           on October 24, 2019, in response to a petition for rulemaking from the Association of American Railroads and an internal review of existing regulations. The NPRM proposed to authorize DOT-113C120W tank cars for use in the transportation of LNG by rail, requesting public comment by December 23, 2019.

            1 See Hazardous Materials: Liquefied Natural Gas by Rail NPRM [84 FR 56964] at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/24/2019-22949/hazardous-materials-liquefied-natural-gas-by-rail.

        On December 5, 2019, PHMSA granted a U.S. Department of Transportation Special Permit 2
           (DOT-SP) to Energy Transport Solutions, LLC (ETS) authorizing transportation of LNG in DOT-113C120 tank cars between Wyalusing, PA and Gibbstown, NJ, with no intermediate stops, subject to certain operational controls. PHMSA issued DOT-SP 20534 after having completed extensive analysis in response to the request for special permit received from ETS in August 2017.

            2 See DOT-SP 20534 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2019-0100-3006.

        The special permit, as issued, includes certain operational controls that were not included in the HM-264 NPRM. PHMSA did not propose operational controls in the HM-264 NPRM. However, in the NPRM, PHMSA invited comment on whether PHMSA and FRA should rely on existing regulations and industry standards, or if additional operational controls may be warranted based on an assessment of risk. PHMSA encouraged commenters to provide data on the safety or economic impacts associated with any suggested operational controls, including analysis of the safety justification or cost impact of implementing the operational controls.
        PHMSA recognized that the subject matter overlapped between the NPRM and special permit. Therefore, PHMSA published a notice 3
           in the Federal Register on December 11, 2019, to inform the public that DOT-SP 20534 and documents supporting the special permit decision were being added to the docket for the HM-264 NPRM for consideration by the public. PHMSA invited comments on these operational controls to be submitted to the rulemaking docket (Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0025) by December 23, 2019. We noted our intent to consider any additional comments on the operational controls included in the special permit that are filed in the rulemaking docket to aid in determining what, if any, operational controls may be appropriate for inclusion in the HM-264 final rule.

            3 See Hazardous Materials: Notice of Issuance of Special Permit Regarding Liquefied Natural Gas [84 FR 67768] at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/12/11/2019-26614/hazardous-materials-notice-of-issuance-of-special-permit-regarding-liquefied-natural-gas.

        II. Comment Period Extension
        PHMSA initially provided a 60-day comment period for the HM-264 NPRM, which expires on December 23, 2019. In response to a request to extend the comment period an additional 30 days from the Offices of the Attorneys General of New York and Maryland, PHMSA is extending the comment period an additional 21 days. The comment period will now close on January 13, 2020. This extension provides the public with 32 days 4
           to review relevant aspects of the special permit, and should provide adequate opportunity for the public to submit additional comments, if necessary.

            4 Thirty days from December 11, 2019, would be January 11, 2020, which is a Saturday, therefore PHMSA decided to extend the comment period to the following Monday, January 13, 2020.

           Issued in Washington, DC, on December 18, 2019, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.97.
          William S. Schoonover,
          Associate Administrator of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

      [FR Doc. 2019-27656 Filed 12-20-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 511 and 552
        [GSAR Case 2014-G504; Docket No. 2015-0003; Sequence No. 1]
        RIN 3090-AJ53
        General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); Unique Item Identification (UID)

          AGENCY:
          Office of Acquisition Policy, General Services Administration.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The General Services Administration (GSA) is proposing to amend the General Services Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR) to remove the GSAR clause Unique Item Identification (UID).

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addressees shown below on or before April 6, 2015 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments in response to GSAR Case 2014-G504 by any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments by searching for “GSAR Case 2014-G504.” Select the link “Comment Now” and follow the instructions provided at the “You are commenting on” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “GSAR Case 2014-G504” 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 GSAR Case 2014-G504, 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:
          Mr. James Tsujimoto, Program Analyst, at 202-208-3585 or james.tsujimoto@gsa.gov, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite GSAR Case 2014-G504.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        GSA is proposing to amend the GSAR to delete GSAR clause 552.211-93, Unique Item Identification (UID), and provide other conforming changes.
        The Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy has notified GSA that GSAR clause 552.211-93 is no longer needed with respect to serially managed supply items and supply items of $5,000 or more. The GSAR clause found at 552.211-93 is unnecessarily duplicative of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), which can be used directly. Because the clause only pertains to deliveries to military activities, GSA defers to the interpretation of the Department of Defense (DoD). The DFARS already includes clauses that address the requirements underlying GSAR clause 552.211-93. As a result, the GSAR clause is not needed.
        II. Discussion and Analysis
        GSAR clause 552.211-93 was incorporated in Change 42 (GSAR 2007-G507, 74 FR 66251, Dec. 15, 2009) on January 14, 2010. The clause was intended to implement DFARS clauses 252.211-7003 and 252.211-7007. The Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy has since notified GSA that the GSAR implementation found at 552.211-93 mixes the two UID-related DFARS clauses and confuses the intent. DFARS 252.211-7003 relates to UID of new items delivered on a contract, while DFARS 252.211-7007 refers to marking and reporting of government furnished property and itself refers to DFARS 252.211-7003 for marking requirements. Inclusion of the actual DFARS clauses in lieu of 552.211.93 will reduce confusion and streamline the acquisition process.
        The specific changes contained in this rule are as follows:
        • GSAR Subpart 511.2, Using and Maintaining Requirements Documents, delete GSAR paragraph 511.204(b)(12) in its entirety.
        • GSAR Subpart 552.2, Text of Provisions and Clauses, delete GSAR provision 552.211-93 in its entirety.
        • General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM), GSAM Subpart 552.3, Provision and Clause Matrixes, delete the row corresponding to GSAR number 552.211-93 in the table.
        III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        GSA does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the deletion of the clause will not substantively change the reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements for contractors.
        Therefore, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been performed. GSA invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
        GSA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (GSAR Case 2014-G504), in correspondence.
        V. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 511 and 552
          Government procurement.

          Dated: January 22, 2015.
          Jeffrey A. Koses,
          Senior Procurement Executive, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration.

        Therefore, GSA proposes to amend 48 CFR parts 511 and 552 as set forth below:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 511 and 552 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          40 U.S.C. 121(c).

          PART 511—DESCRIBING AGENCY NEEDS

            511.204
            [Amended]

        2. Amend section 511.204 by removing paragraph (b)(12).

          PART 552—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

            552.211-93
            [Removed and Reserved]

        3. Remove and reserve section 552.211-93.

      [FR Doc. 2015-02119 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-61-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-8286-7]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Notice of intent for partial deletion of the Rocky Flats Plant from the National Priorities List; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 announces its intent to delete the Peripheral Operable Unit (OU) and Operable Unit 3 (OU 3), also referred to as the Offsite Areas, encompassing approximately 25,413 acres, of the Department of Energy (DOE) Rocky Flats Plant from the 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). Rocky Flats Plant means the property owned by the United States Government, also known as Rocky Flats, Rocky Flats Site, or Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS), as identified in Figure 1. The Rocky Flats Plant is divided into the Central and Peripheral Operable Units (Figure 2) which contain 1,308 and 4,933 acres, respectively, and OU 3 (Figure 3) which contains approximately 20,480 acres. The 3 referenced figures are available as described below in the section entitled Docket.

          EPA bases its proposal to delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant on the determination by EPA and the State of Colorado, through the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), that all appropriate actions under CERCLA have been implemented to protect human health, welfare and the environment and that no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.
          This partial deletion pertains to the surface media (soil, surface water, sediment) and subsurface media, including groundwater, within the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant. The Central OU will remain on the NPL and is not being considered for deletion as part of this action.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2007.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail:
            henneke.rob@epa.gov.

          • Fax: 303-312-6961.
          • Mail: Rob Henneke, Community Involvement Coordinator (8OC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
          • Hand delivery: Rob Henneke, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal business hours from 8 a.m.—4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, not through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents and referenced figures in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials may be accessed at the following locations during specified hours of operation. The U.S. EPA Region 8 Docket Facility, EPA Technical Library, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. by appointment, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket telephone number is 303-312-6734. The DOE Rocky Flats Plant Docket Facility is located at Front Range Community College, 3705 112 Avenue, Westminster, Colorado, 80030. The Rocky Flats Plant Docket Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Thursday and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Friday, excluding legal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Rob Henneke, Community Involvement Coordinator (8OC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129; telephone number: 1-800-227-8917 or (303) 312-6734; fax number: 303-312-7150; e-mail address: henneke.rob@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

        I. Introduction
        EPA Region 8 announces its intent to delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant, Jefferson and Boulder Counties, Colorado, from the NPL and requests comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, 40 CFR Part 300, which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9605. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the NPL (60 FR 55466 (November 1, 1995)). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3), portions of a site deleted from the NPL remain eligible for further remedial actions if warranted by future conditions.

        EPA will accept comments concerning its intent for partial deletion of the Rocky Flats Plant for 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register (FR).
        Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures that EPA is using for this proposed partial deletion. Section IV discusses the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant and explains how it 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 public health or the environment. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
        Section 300.425(e)(1)(i). Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
         Section 300.425(e)(1)(ii). All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
        Section 300.425(e)(1)(iii). 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.

        A partial deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect or impede EPA's ability to conduct CERCLA response activities for portions not deleted from 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. DOE will be responsible for all future remedial actions required at the area deleted if future site conditions warrant such actions.
        III. Deletion Procedures
        Upon determination that at least one of the criteria described in Section 300.425(e) of the NCP has been met, EPA may formally begin deletion procedures. The following procedures were used for this proposed deletion of the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL:
        (1) DOE has requested the partial deletion and has prepared the relevant documents.
        (2) The State of Colorado, through CDPHE, has concurred with publication of this notice of intent for partial deletion.

        (3) Concurrent with this national Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion, a local notice has been published in a newspaper of record and has been distributed to appropriate federal, State, and local officials, and other interested parties. These notices announce a 30 day public comment period on the deletion package, which ends on April 12, 2007, based upon publication of this notice in the Federal Register and a local newspaper of record.
        (4) EPA has made all relevant documents available at the information repositories listed previously for public inspection and copying.

        Upon completion of the 30 calendar day public comment period, EPA Region 8 will evaluate each significant comment and any significant new data received before issuing a final decision concerning the proposed partial deletion. EPA will prepare a responsiveness summary for each significant comment and any significant new data received during the public comment period and will address concerns presented in such comments and data. The responsiveness summary will be made available to the public at the EPA Region 8 office and the information repositories listed above and will be included in the final deletion package. Members of the public are encouraged to contact EPA Region 8 to obtain a copy of the responsiveness summary. If, after review of all such comments and data, EPA determines that the partial deletion from the NPL is appropriate, EPA will publish a final notice of partial deletion in the Federal Register. Deletion of the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant does not actually occur until a final notice of partial deletion is published in the Federal Register. A copy of the final partial deletion package will be placed at the EPA Region 8 office and the information repositories listed above after a final document has been published in the Federal Register.
        IV. Basis for Intended Partial Deletion
        The following provides EPA's rationale for deletion from the NPL of the Rocky Flats Plant Peripheral OU and OU 3 and EPA's finding that the criteria in 40 CFR 300.425(e) are satisfied.
        Site Background and History
        The Rocky Flats Plant is a DOE facility owned by the United States. Rocky Flats is located in the Denver metropolitan area, approximately sixteen miles northwest of Denver, Colorado, and ten miles south of Boulder, Colorado. Nearby communities include the Cities of Arvada, Broomfield, and Westminster, Colorado. The majority of the Site is located in Jefferson County, with a small portion located in Boulder County, Colorado.
        Rocky Flats Plant was proposed by EPA for inclusion on the CERCLA NPL in 1984, and was added to the CERCLA NPL on September 21, 1989 (54 FR 41015, October 4, 1989). The EPA Superfund Identification Number for Rocky Flats Plant is CO7890010526. The Site was proposed for listing because activities at Rocky Flats resulted in the release of materials defined by CERCLA as hazardous substances, contaminants, and pollutants, as well as hazardous wastes and hazardous waste constituents as defined by the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and Colorado Hazardous Waste Act (CHWA). Contaminants released to the environment from the activities at Rocky Flats have included, but were not limited to: Radionuclides (such as plutonium, americium, and various uranium isotopes), organic solvents (such as trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and carbon tetrachloride), metals (such as chromium), and nitrates. Apart from the activities of DOE and its contractors at the Site, there are no other known, significant, human-caused sources of contamination at Rocky Flats.
        Two Operable Units (OUs) are present within the boundaries of the Site: the Peripheral OU and the Central OU. The Central OU consolidated all areas of the Site that required remedial actions, while also considering practicalities of future land management. The Central OU is not included within this proposed partial deletion action. The Peripheral OU includes the majority of the Buffer Zone and was left undisturbed. This land provided a security and safety buffer area around the former manufacturing areas of the Site. Portions of the Buffer Zone have been co-managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for ecological resources since 1999. Based upon the RCRA Facility Investigation—Remedial Investigation/Corrective Measures Study—Feasibility Study Report for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RI/FS) Report, which included both a Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, DOE (as the Lead Agency under CERCLA) determined that no action was necessary to protect public health, welfare or the environment for the Peripheral OU. That decision was supported and documented in the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Corrective Action Decision/Record of Decision (CAD/ROD) signed by DOE, CDPHE and EPA, Region 8 on September 29, 2006.
        OU 3 encompasses an area north, south, and primarily east of the Peripheral and Central OUs. OU 3 was addressed under a separate CAD/ROD, Corrective Action Decision/Record of Decision Operable Unit 3, The Offsite Areas Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site dated April 1997. The OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed by DOE, CDPHE and EPA, Region 8 on June 3, 1997 and determined that no action was necessary to protect public health, welfare or the environment.
        A. Peripheral Operable Unit
        The RI/FS Report was prepared in accordance with the Interim Final Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under CERCLA. Because remedial activities at RFETS were conducted under RCRA and CHWA, this RI/FS Report also met RCRA/CHWA requirements for an RCRA Facility Investigation/Corrective Measures Study (RFI/CMS) Report. References to CERCLA requirements were also intended to encompass RCRA/CHWA requirements. For simplicity, the report is hereinafter referred to as the RI/FS Report. The RI/FS Report, approved by EPA and CDPHE on July 5, 2006, was the basis for development of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Proposed Plan that described the preferred remedy. The Proposed Plan was the basis for the Final CAD/ROD.
        A.1 Description of the Peripheral OU Remedial Investigation

        DOE began more than 20 years ago to develop an extensive body of documentation about the use of hazardous substances and the known or suspected release of hazardous substances at Rocky Flats. Information was gathered from an extensive review of Rocky Flats operating records and contemporaneous documents. In addition, interviews were conducted of persons with knowledge of Rocky Flats operations and of events that did release or were suspected of releasing hazardous substances. The information collected is organized in the Rocky Flats Historical Release Report (HRR), originally published in 1992, which has been periodically updated as investigation and cleanup of the Site progressed. The final version of the HRR is provided as Appendix B of the RI/FS report entitled FY2005 FINAL Historical Release Report dated October 2005.
        Sampling and analysis of surface and subsurface soil, groundwater, and surface water were extensively used to locate and measure hazardous substance contamination at historical release locations and guide the conduct and completion of remediation activities. Environmental monitoring was performed under the auspices of a site-wide integrated monitoring plan. Additional monitoring was conducted pursuant to environmental permits, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and the State of Colorado Air Quality Operating Permit, issued to DOE and its contractors.
        Environmental data for Rocky Flats were collected in accordance with agency-approved Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) and standardized contract-required analytical procedures. Approved Work Plans and SAPs specified the use of EPA-approved sampling procedures and analytical methods, data quality requirements, and data management processes, and specified the appropriate data quality objectives. Documented releases of hazardous substances at Rocky Flats include radionuclides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), inorganic compounds, and metals.
        Known or suspected release locations (primarily soil) were delineated by 183 Individual Hazardous Substance Sites (IHSSs), 146 Potential Areas of Concern (PACs), 31 Under Building Contamination (UBC) Sites, and 61 Potential Incidents of Concern (PICs) (totaling 421 areas). The IHSSs, PACs, UBC Sites, and PICs were thoroughly investigated and characterized, as appropriate, and accelerated actions, including non-time critical removals, triggered by contamination levels have been confirmed as completed and met response goals.
        The nature and extent of contamination evaluations considered the following environmental media: soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and air. These evaluations were conducted to show the types of analytes of interest (AOIs) remaining in the environmental media and their extent at Rocky Flats following the completion of accelerated actions. The purpose of identifying AOIs was to focus the nature and extent evaluation on constituents that were detected at concentrations that may contribute to the risk to future receptors and to show the overall spatial and temporal trends of those constituents on a sitewide basis. These evaluations identified 14 AOIs for surface soil, 14 AOIs for subsurface soil, 19 AOIs for groundwater, 18 AOIs for surface water, 5 AOIs for sediment, and 5 AOIs for air. The contaminant fate and transport evaluation used information about the Site physical characteristics, contaminant source characteristics, and contaminant distribution across the Site to develop a conceptual understanding of the dominant transport processes that affect the migration of different contaminants in various Rocky Flats environmental media. The primary focus was evaluating the potential for contaminants from any medium to impact surface water quality. Evaluation of a contaminant's fate and transport was based upon two criteria: (1) Does a complete migration pathway to a potential receptor exist based on an evaluation of contaminant transport in each environmental medium; and (2) is there a potential impact to surface water quality based on an evaluation of data at representative groundwater and surface water monitoring locations in the creek drainages.
        The RI included a Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA). The CRA consisted of two parts: Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA). The CRA was designed to provide information to decision makers to help determine the effectiveness of the accelerated actions and select a final remedy that is protective of human health and the environment. The CRA evaluated the risks posed by conditions at the Site to the anticipated future users (wildlife workers and visitors) and anticipated future land use. The CRA did not evaluate an unrestricted use scenario, but did consider an indoor air pathway, if occupied structures were to be present at the Site in the future.

        The Peripheral OU was determined to be unimpacted by hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants with the exceptions subsequently discussed. A small portion of the Peripheral OU was impacted by Site activities from a radiological perspective. For example, plutonium exists above background in surface soil in small areas within the Peripheral OU. A few sampling locations for plutonium within the Peripheral OU exceed a level of 9.8 picocuries per gram (pCi/g), which corresponds to a 1 × 10−6 risk level for a wildlife refuge worker. Of these few sampling locations, the highest result is approximately 20 pCi/g. If that highest concentration of 20 pCi/g was considered the average concentration over an appropriate exposure unit, it would correspond to a risk of approximately 1 × 10−5 for a resident, which would be in the middle of the CERCLA risk range (10−6 to 10−4). These levels of radioactivity are also far below the 231 pCi/g activity level for an adult rural resident, which equates to the 25-millirem per year dose criterion specified in the Colorado Standards for Protection Against Radiation.
        A.2 Declaration Statement for the Peripheral OU CAD/ROD
        Based upon the RI/FS Report, which included both a Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, DOE (as the Lead Agency under CERCLA) determined that no action was necessary to protect public health or welfare or the environment for the Peripheral OU.
        The RI/FS Report concluded that the Peripheral OU was in a state protective of human health and the environment. The NCP provides for the selection of a no action remedy when an OU is in such a protective state and therefore, no remedial action for the Peripheral OU was warranted. The selected remedy for the Peripheral OU was no action.
        A.3 Peripheral OU Conclusions
        The selected remedy for the Peripheral OU meets the requirements of CERCLA Section 121, and to the extent practicable, the NCP. The selected remedy for the Peripheral OU is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and State requirements, and is cost-effective. The selected remedy complies with applicable requirements of the CHWA. No accelerated actions were taken in the Peripheral OU, and no remedial action alternatives other than the no action alternative were required to be evaluated for the Peripheral OU. Because no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants occur in the Peripheral OU above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, no five-year review is required for this remedy.
        B. Operable Unit 3 (Offsite Areas)

        The OU 3 CAD/ROD was prepared by DOE, Rocky Flats Field Office, Golden, Colorado, in April 1997, and was signed by DOE, CDPHE, and EPA Region 8 on June 3, 1997. The following is the basis for deleting OU3 and is a part of the deletion docket.
        OU 3 was investigated and a remedy was selected in compliance with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order—Interagency Agreement (IAG), signed by DOE, CDPHE, and EPA on January 22, 1991. The selected remedy is also consistent with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order—Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement (RFCA), signed by DOE, CDPHE, and EPA on July 19, 1996.
        OU 3 is one of sixteen OUs at Rocky Flats identified in the 1991 IAG, and is the only one not located within the RFETS boundaries. The 1996 RFCA consolidated the original sixteen OUs into three OUs, but OU 3 remained separate, owing both to its unique geographic location and to the fact that investigations and administrative activity for OU 3 were nearly completed when the 1996 RFCA was signed. OU 3 is comprised of four Individual Hazardous Substance Sites (IHSSs): Contamination of the Land's Surface (IHSS 199), Great Western Reservoir (IHSS 200), Standley Lake (IHSS 201) and Mower Reservoir (IHSS 202). IHSSs are specific locations where hazardous substances, solid wastes, pollutants, contaminants, hazardous wastes or hazardous constituents may have been disposed of or released to the environment from Rocky Flats at any time in the past.
        B.1 Description of the OU 3 Remedial Investigation
        The selected remedy for OU 3 was no action. A Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA), including an HHRA and an ERA, was conducted as part of the OU 3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation. The RCRA Facility Investigation/CERCLA Remedial Investigation (RFI/RI) Report was completed in accordance with requirements presented in the Interagency Agreement and specifically identified in the OU3 RFI/RI Work Plan and addenda. The RFI/RI Report evaluated human health risks based upon exposure to identified Contaminants of Concern (COCs) and was reported as the probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to OU 3 contamination under recreational and residential exposure scenarios. Assumptions regarding future land use provided the basis to calculate human health risks for both IHSS 199 and for IHSS 200. No COCs were identified in surface water samples collected from Standley Lake, Great Western Reservoir, and Mower Reservoir.
        For IHSS 199, risks from both plutonium and americium were calculated and were assumed to be additive. For IHSS 200, only the risks associated with plutonium were calculated, as plutonium was the only COC there. In both IHSSs, the highest contaminant concentration was used in risk calculations. The RFI/RI Report also calculated radiation doses that would be expected as a result of the recreational and residential scenarios described in the OU 3 CAD/ROD.

        Excess lifetime cancer risk (that is, the incremental additional cancer risk that is incurred through exposure to COCs at OU 3 or any other contaminated site) is calculated by multiplying the average daily chemical intake over a lifetime of exposure by the contaminant's individual slope factor. For radionuclides, slope factors are the average risk per unit intake or exposure for an individual in a stationary population with mortality rates typical of those in the United States in 1970. EPA guidelines indicate that excess lifetime cancer risks which are within or below the one in ten thousand (1 × 10−4) to one in one million (1 × 10−6) range are considered protective of human health.

        For IHSS 199, the highest calculated excess cancer risk, assuming reasonable maximum exposures (RME) under a residential exposure was three in one million (3 × 10−6). Using central tendency, the risk under a residential scenario was two in ten million (2 × 10−7). For the recreational exposure, the excess cancer risk was five in one hundred million (5 x 10−8) using the RME, and three in one billion (3 × 10−9) using central tendency.

        For IHSS 200, the highest calculated excess cancer risk employing RME and the residential exposure was nine in ten million (9 × 10−7); the corresponding risk using central tendency was six in one hundred million (6 × 10−8). Using the recreational scenario, the highest risk using RME was one in one hundred million (1 × 10−8), and the risk using central tendency was eight in ten billion (8 × 10−10).
        The highest calculated radiation dose for IHSSs 199 and 200 occurred using the RME, assuming a residential exposure scenario. The highest Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE, which incorporates both internal and external radiation dose) for IHSS 199 for an adult was 0.12 millirem per year (mrem/yr); the corresponding TEDE for IHSS 200 is 0.0065 mrem/yr. The average radiation dose in the U.S. is estimated to be about 300 mrem/year, while the average dose in Colorado may be as much as 700 mrem/year, owing to the state's higher altitude and relative abundance of naturally occurring radionuclides.
        These levels of radioactivity are also far below the 231 pCi/g activity level for an adult rural resident that equates to the 25 mrem/year dose criterion specified in the Colorado Standards for Protection Against Radiation. Based on these results, the Peripheral OU is determined to be acceptable for all uses from a radiological perspective.
        The RFI/RI Report evaluated health risks and radiation dose from surface water. Surface water was sampled for plutonium and americium. The maximum and mean concentrations of plutonium and americium detected in surface water from the reservoirs were well below the CDPHE standards, the National Drinking Water Standards, and the Rocky Flats Site specific standards for plutonium and americium.
        DOE submitted the RFI/RI Report to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a part of the federal Center for Disease Control, for the purpose of obtaining a Health Consultation. The purpose of the Health Consultation was to obtain an independent evaluation as to whether COCs had been adequately identified in OU 3, the risks to human health posed by releases of hazardous substances in OU 3 adequately analyzed, and whether the proposal for no remedial action in OU 3 was appropriate considering these risks. The ATSDR concluded that the COC selection process was based on reasonable assumptions, and that none of the constituents present in OU 3 posed public health concerns. Further, the ATSDR Health Consultation stated that no additional activities were needed in OU 3 in order to ensure the public's health.
        Based upon the BRA and the ERA contained in the RFI/RI Report, DOE, the lead agency under CERCLA for OU 3, concluded that no action was appropriate for OU 3. The RFI/RI Report concluded that all IHSSs within OU 3 are already protective of human health and the environment. Field and laboratory work showed no indications of adverse effects from plutonium or americium on the ecology of OU 3. The NCP provides for the selection of a no action remedy when an OU is in such a protective state. Therefore, no remedial action regarding OU 3 or any of its constituent IHSSs was warranted.
        B.2 Declaration Statement for Offsite Areas OU CAD/ROD

        DOE in consultation with CDPHE and EPA, determined that no remedial action was necessary for OU 3 to be protective of human health, welfare and the environment. No hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants remain within the boundaries of OU3 above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, as these levels have been calculated in the OU 3 RFI/RI Report.
        B.3 Evaluation of OU3 CAD/ROD Data in First Five-Year Review
        A five-year review of the OU 3 CAD/ROD was conducted to assess the continued protectiveness of the remedy. The OU 3 CAD/ROD concluded that transport by wind and water was the primary means by which plutonium and americium were carried to OU 3. Therefore, available air and water monitoring data collected after the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed were reviewed to determine if environmental conditions at OU 3 have changed since the BRA was completed. The air monitoring data from the RFETS perimeter air monitoring network were analyzed and the conclusion was that the amounts of plutonium and americium that have been measured at the RFETS perimeter since 1997 have been environmentally insignificant. These amounts of plutonium and americium would not have caused contaminant levels in OU 3 to change significantly since the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed. Water monitoring data from the RFCA Points of Compliance on Woman Creek and Walnut Creek at Indiana Street, and data collected by the City of Broomfield for Great Western Reservoir, were analyzed. Samples of water leaving RFETS showed consistent compliance with RFCA surface water standards, and water samples from Great Western Reservoir were consistently at or below detection limits for plutonium and americium. The report also included a Protectiveness Statement as required by EPA guidance. Pursuant to the Protectiveness Statement, DOE's ongoing custody and control of RFETS, ongoing monitoring programs, and restriction of public access serve to adequately control risks posed by contamination at RFETS. The no action decision for OU 3 was determined to be adequately protective.
        Review of air monitoring data and water quality data at the Points of Compliance since the first five-year review also indicate there have not been significant amounts of plutonium or americium that have entered OU 3 through the air or water pathways. Therefore, environmental conditions at OU 3 have not changed significantly since the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed.
        B.4 OU 3 Conclusions
        Conditions in OU 3 pose no unacceptable or significant risks to human health or the environment; future unacceptable or significant exposures will not occur there as a result of past contamination. DOE concluded that no action was necessary in OU 3 for the protection of human health or the environment. Reviews following the OU 3 CAD/ROD have concluded that environmental conditions at OU 3 have not changed significantly since the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed.
        Community Involvement
        Public Participation activities for the cleanup of the Peripheral OU and OU 3 were conducted as required under CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Public review included the following activities:
        A. Community Involvement for the Peripheral OU

        The Draft RI/FS Report for the RFETS was released for public review and information in October 2005, and was available at that time in the Rocky Flats public reading rooms and online. Several informational public meetings on the draft RI/FS were held, at which representatives from DOE and its contractor, EPA and CDPHE were present to answer questions. These meetings included a discussion at the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board meeting on November 3, 2005. The final RI/FS report was approved by EPA and CDPHE on July 5, 2006. Copies of the final RI/FS report were placed at seven information centers in the Denver metropolitan area on July 14, 2005. In addition, the RI/FS report was available on line at http://www.rfets.gov, and copies on compact disc were available at the public information meetings during the comment period for the Proposed Plan. DOE, EPA and CDPHE held a pre-release informational meeting for the Proposed Plan on May 30, 2006, to explain changes that were made to the draft RI/FS report, and to describe the major components of the Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan was released for formal public comment on July 14, 2006. Notice of the public comment period appeared in The Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post from May 22 through May 28, 2006, and was also provided at the informational public meeting. DOE sent out community and media advisories prior to the release of the Proposed Plan, and prior to each informational meeting and the public hearing. The Proposed Plan was placed in seven information centers in the Denver metropolitan area, was available at the informational meetings held during the comment period, and was available on line at http://www.rfets.gov. The Proposed Plan included discussions on future land use and use of groundwater at Rocky Flats. The Rocky Flats administrative record file was available for public review at the Front Range Community College reading room in Westminster, Colorado, as well as on line at http://www.rfets.gov.

        DOE held two informational meetings during the public comment period, at which agency representatives presented the scope and purpose of the Proposed Plan, discussed opportunities to provide input on the Proposed Plan, and responded to questions from the public. The first informational meeting was held on July 19, 2006 in Golden, Colorado, and the second informational meeting took place in Westminster, Colorado on August 8, 2006. Prior notice of each meeting was provided through advertisements in the aforementioned newspapers, running from July 13 through July 19, 2006, and again from August 2 through August 8, 2006. A public hearing for the Proposed Plan took place on August 31, 2006 in Arvada, Colorado; separate sessions were held in the afternoon and in the evening on that date to accommodate as many members of the public as possible. Prior notice of the public hearing was accomplished through advertisements in the aforementioned newspapers that ran from August 25 through August 31, 2006, with a display ad posted in both papers on August 29, 2006. Both written and oral public comments were accepted at the public hearing. A transcript of the public hearing has been made available to the public and placed in the Rocky Flats administrative record file.
        The public comment period for the Proposed Plan extended from July 14 through September 13, 2006. No requests for extension of the public comment period were received. DOE's responses to public comments received during the comment period are included in the Responsiveness Summary section of the RFETS CAD/ROD.
        B. Community Involvement for OU 3
        DOE submitted the final RFI/RI Report for OU 3 to EPA on July 11, 1996 following resolution of final comments by EPA, CDPHE, the City of Broomfield, and the City of Westminster. Regulatory approval to release the OU 3 Proposed Plan for public comment was granted on August 7, 1996.

        The Proposed Plan was released for public comment on August 7, 1996. A public hearing on the OU 3 Proposed Plan was held on September 18, 1996 at the Arvada Center for the Performing Arts and Humanities in Arvada, Colorado. Citizen comments received at the public hearing were recorded and responses to those comments were included in a Responsiveness Summary. The public comment period for the OU 3 Proposed Plan ended on October 11, 1996. Written comments on the Proposed Plan were received from the Cities of Westminster and Broomfield. Responses to those written comments were also included in the Responsiveness Summary.
        Current Status
        The RFETS RI/FS Report concluded that the Peripheral OU was already in a state protective of human health and the environment, therefore the selected remedy in the RFETS CAD/ROD for the Peripheral OU was no action. No accelerated actions were taken in the Peripheral OU, and no remedial action alternatives were evaluated for the Peripheral OU. Because no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants occur in the Peripheral OU above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a five-year review was not required for this remedy. This documentation provides the technical justification for deletion of the Peripheral Operable Unit, Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL.
        For the OU 3 (Offsite Areas) conditions were determined to be protective of human health and the environment at the time the OU 3 CAD/ROD was signed in 1997, and again during the first five-year review finalized in September 2002. Since then, summary data for OU 3 has been reviewed and indicate that conditions have not changed to alter conclusions of earlier OU 3 assessments. This documentation provides the technical justification for deletion of OU 3 (Offsite Areas), Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL.
        EPA, with concurrence from CDPHE, has determined that all appropriate CERCLA response actions have been completed within the Peripheral OU and OU 3 to protect public health and the environment and that no further response action by responsible parties is required. Therefore, EPA proposes to delete the Peripheral OU and OU 3 of the Rocky Flats Plant from the NPL.

          Dated: March 1, 2007.
          Robert E. Roberts,
          Regional Administrator, Region 8.

       [FR Doc. E7-4449 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 111903A]
        RIN 0648-AR73
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Skates Management in the Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 63 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP).   If approved, Amendment 63 would move skates from the “other species” list to the “target species” list in the FMP.  By listing skates as a target species, a directed fishery for skates in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) may be managed to reduce the potential for overfishing skates.  This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws.  Comments from the public are welcome.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 63 must be submitted by  February 2, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on the FMP amendment should be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802, Attn:   Lori Durall, or delivered to room 420 of the Federal Building, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK.  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7557.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.  Copies of Amendment 63 and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for the amendment may be obtained from the same address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Melanie Brown, 907-586-7228 or melanie.brown@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each Regional Fishery Management Council submit any FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval.  The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and comment.
        The Council unanimously adopted Amendment 63 in October 2003.  If approved by NMFS, this amendment would move skates from the “other species” list to the “target species” list, allowing the management of skates as a target species.  NMFS trawl survey and catch information show that of the 14 skate species occurring in the Gulf of Alaska, the majority of the catch is made up of big and longnose skate species.  The big skates and longnose skates would be listed under the skates category in the target species list to allow for management of these individual species.

        Skates currently are managed as part of the other species complex with sharks, sculpins, octopus, and squid.  The total allowable catch limit (TAC) for this complex is five percent of the aggregate of all TACs for target groundfish species or species groups of the GOA.  Target species TACs are established for an individual species or species group, and NMFS manages the directed fishery for these species to avoid exceeding the specified TACs.  TACs usually are set at or below the acceptable biological catch (ABC) limits, which are below the overfishing levels (OFLs) for each target species or species group.  The other species complex does not have an OFL or ABC limit due to the lack of stock assessment information for most of the species in the complex.
        In 2003, a directed fishery for skates rapidly developed in the GOA.  The 2003 skates harvest was 3,042 metric tons (mt) compared to 782 mt of skates harvested in 2002.  Because skates are managed within the other species complex, the full TAC for the other species complex is available for a directed fishery for skates.
        To reduce the potential for overfishing, the Council recommended that skates be managed as a target species.  As a target species, OFL, ABC, and TAC amounts for skates would  be established by annual harvest specifications, allowing for more effective management of skates based on the best available scientific information.  The development of  OFL, ABC, and TAC amounts for the 2004 harvest specifications for skates would be based on scientific survey and harvest information from 2003 and prior years.   Managing a directed fishery for skates so that OFL, ABC, and TAC  amounts are not exceeded would reduce the potential for overfishing and would meet the conservation objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

        Public comments are being solicited on proposed Amendment 63 through the end of the comment period stated (see DATES).  A proposed rule that would implement the amendment may be published in the Federal Register for public comment at a later date.  Public comments on the proposed rule must be received by the end of the comment period on the amendment in order to be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment.  All comments received by the end of the comment period on the amendment, whether specifically directed to the amendment or to the proposed rule, will be considered in the approval/disapproval decision.  Comments received after that date will not be considered in the approval/disapproval decision on the amendment.  To be considered, comments must be received not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted by close of business on the last day of the comment period.

          Dated:  November 25, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-29940 Filed 12-1-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 282
        [EPA-R10-UST-2019-0363; FRL-10003-27-Region 10]
        Idaho: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the State of Idaho's Underground Storage Tank (UST) program submitted by the State. This action is based on EPA's determination that the State's revisions satisfy all requirements for UST program approval. This action also proposes to codify Idaho's State program as revised by Idaho and approved by the EPA and to incorporate by reference the State regulations that we have determined meet the requirements for approval. The State's federally-authorized and codified UST program, as revised pursuant to this action, will remain subject to the EPA's inspection and enforcement authorities under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA Subtitle I and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

          DATES:
          Send written comments by February 10, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
          1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          2. Email: wilder.scott@epa.gov.

          3. Mail: Scott Wilder, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division (ECAD 20-C04) EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, Washington 98101.
          4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Scott Wilder, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division (ECAD 20-C04), EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, Washington 98101.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-UST-2019-0363. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be available online at https://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 https://www.regulations.gov, or email. The federal https://www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov, then your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, then the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, then the 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.
          You can view and copy the documents that form the basis for this action and associated publicly available materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday at the following location: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number (206) 553-6693. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 2 days in advance.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Scott Wilder, (206) 553-6693, Region 10, Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Agreement, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101, email address: wilder.scott@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        For additional information, see the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

          Authority:This rule is issued under the authority of Sections 2002(a), 9004, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.

          Dated: November 27, 2019.
          Chris Hladick,
          Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.

      [FR Doc. 2019-28391 Filed 1-9-20; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 165
        [Docket Number USCG-2015-0084]
        RIN 1625-AA00, AA11
        Great Lakes—Regulated Navigation Areas and Safety Zones

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard proposes to amend its Great Lakes Regulated Navigation Areas to include one additional regulated navigation area in Green Bay, Wisconsin and safety zones in the Lake Erie Islands and Saginaw Bay, MI. These zones will apply during the winter months and are necessary to protect waterway users, vessels, and mariners from hazards associated with winter conditions and navigation.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 22, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0084 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Matthew Stroebel, Ninth District Coast Guard Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216-902-6060, email matthew.k.stroebel@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          I. Table of Abbreviations
          CFR Code of Federal Regulations
          DHS Department of Homeland Security
          FR Federal Register
          NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
          § Section
          U.S.C. United States Code

        II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

        On May 22, 2015, the Coast Guard proposed a rule to establish three regulated navigation areas (RNA) and two safety zones in its Great Lakes area. These zones were intended to improve the safety of both recreational users and commercial shipping in high use areas. During the comment period that ended July 6, 2015, we received a total of 6 comments. We received one comment from the Lake Carriers' Association stating that it found the rule unnecessary and expressed concern that the rule will impede vessels' ability to respond quickly and creatively to winter conditions. The comment suggested that COTP Orders specifically tailored to existing and forecasted conditions is a better way to respond to hazardous ice conditions. We agree that in Maumee Bay and the Straits of Mackinac, COTP orders can be used instead of an RNA since safety issues occur less frequently in these areas. Our determination is that in Green Bay a RNA is necessary due to the high concentration of recreational users and expected increased commercial vessel traffic in the zone.
        We received 1 comment that did not relate to the rule. Finally, we received 3 comments in favor of the Erie Islands safety zone and two in favor of the Maumee Bay regulated navigation area.
        Based on the comments received regarding the NPRM, this proposed rulemaking has been amended. We believe that regulated navigation areas in Maumee Bay and the Straits of Mackinac are not necessary. This supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking retracts the Coast Guard's proposals to create new regulated navigation areas in Maumee Bay and the Straits of Mackinac. We also retract our proposal to re-designate three existing regulated navigation areas as safety zones. The three areas that were proposed to be redesignated as safety zones serve two functions; to establish a single route which optimizes limited icebreaking resources and to protect recreational ice users. By keeping these areas as RNA's it emphasizes that these areas do not solely exist to protect recreational users, but to fulfill an important function in maintaining an efficient navigation plan during ice covered periods.
        Instead, this rulemaking proposes to retain the addition of two safety zones in the Lake Erie Islands and Saginaw Bay to protect recreational ice users from the dangers associated with vessels disturbing the ice that is primarily used for recreation. We also propose to retain adding one regulated navigation area in Green Bay to manage increased commercial traffic in an area that typically experiences high volumes of recreational use.
        The Coast Guard does not propose changes to the already existing regulated navigation areas in this section. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.
        III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
        The Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.901 based on the foregoing discussion.
        The Coast Guard proposes to make paragraph (b) in the current regulation into paragraph (a)(2)(i). Further, the Coast Guard proposes to add paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to establish a regulated navigation area in Green Bay. Within the regulated navigation area the COTP may issue orders to control vessel traffic. Prior to issuing orders to vessel traffic the COTP will provide advance notice as reasonably practicable under the circumstances. This regulated navigation area would include the waters of Green Bay, bounded by a line between Peshtigo Point and Sherwood Point. Green Bay is an area that has many recreational ice users that are accustomed to Green Bay being free from vessel transits during the winter months. Vessels have requested to transit through Green Bay during the ice season at a frequency of 2 to 4 transits per week. The Coast Guard needs to proactively manage activity within Green Bay to ensure the safety of both commercial vessel traffic and recreational ice users.
        The Coast Guard proposes to add a paragraph (c) and a paragraph (d) to 33 CFR 165.901 to accommodate the addition of two safety zones to the current regulation. Proposed paragraph (c)(1) establishes a safety zone in the Lake Erie Islands. The zone would be opened and closed by the Captain of the Port (COTP) after providing the public at least 72 hours of advance notice. This safety zone would span from the city of Huron, OH on the eastern side to Port Clinton, OH on its western side. The northern border of the safety zone would be the international border which is located between Kelly's Island and Pelee Island. No vessel would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to permit vessels to enter/transit a closed safety zone under certain circumstances. This safety zone will protect recreational ice users from the hazards associated with vessels breaking or disturbing the ice within the zone.
        Proposed paragraph (c)(2) establishes a safety zone in Saginaw Bay. The zone would be opened and closed by the Captain of the Port (COTP) after providing the public at least 72 hours of advance notice. This safety zone would include the waters in Saginaw Bay, bounded by a line between Tawas Point and Port Austin Reef. No vessel would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to permit vessels to enter/transit a closed safety zone under certain circumstances. This safety zone will protect recreational ice users from the hazards associated with vessels breaking or disturbing the ice within the zone.
        Proposed paragraph (d) will include the information relevant to the enforcement of these safety zones. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
        IV. Regulatory Analyses
        We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
        A. Regulatory Planning and Review
        Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017). A regulatory analysis (RA) follows.

        The proposed amendments involve closure areas and a vessel management area, designed to be implemented only during winter months, as ice conditions dictate. As to the impact of the closure area on Lake Erie near the South Channel and the Erie Islands, OH, the Coast Guard notes that industry vessels have taken alternative routes bypassing the Erie Islands when recreational ice users are present. The Coast Guard anticipates the same practice when this area is closed. Further, regarding the closure area on the waters of Lake Huron in Saginaw Bay, Michigan, the Coast Guard anticipates closing the bay after giving due consideration to industry's need to traverse the area. Moreover, under certain circumstances, the Coast Guard may permit vessel traffic to transit the closure areas. Regarding the regulated navigation area in Green Bay, it is designed to regulate the conditions of vessel transit for safety. Overall, we expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal and that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
        B. Impact on Small Entities
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

        If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

        Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
        C. Collection of Information
        This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
        D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments
        A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

        Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        F. Environment

        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves amendments to navigation regulations and establishment of a safety zones. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
        G. Protest Activities

        The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.
        V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

        We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

        We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

        Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

          List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
          Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

          PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

        1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

        2. Revise § 165.901 to read as follows:

          §  165.901
          Great Lakes—regulated navigation areas and safety zones.
          (a) The following are regulated navigation areas:
          (1) Lake Huron. (i) The waters of Lake Huron known as South Channel between Bois Blanc Island and Cheboygan, Michigan; bounded by a line north from Cheyboygan Crib Light (LL-1340) at 45°39′48″ N., 84°27′36″ W.; to Bois Blanc Island at 45°43′42″ N., 84°27′36″ W.; and a line north from the mainland at 45°43′00″ N., 84°35′30″ W.; to the western tangent of Bois Blanc Island at 45°48′42″ N., 84°35′30″ W.
          (ii) The waters of Lake Huron between Mackinac Island and St. Ignace, Michigan, bounded by a line east from position 45°52′12″ N., 84°43′00″ W.; to Mackinac Island at 45°52′12″ N., 84°39′00″ W.; and a line east from the mainland at 45°53′12″ N., 84°43′30″ W.; to the northern tangent of Mackinac Island at 45°53′12″ N., 84°38′48″ W.
          (2) Lake Michigan. (i) The waters of Lake Michigan known as Gray's Reef Passage bounded by a line from Gray's Reef Light (LL-2006) at 45°46′00″ N., 85°09′12″ W.; to White Shoals Light (LL-2003) at 45°50′30″ N., 85°08′06″ W.; to a point at 45°49′12″ N., 85°04′48″ W.; then to a point at 45°45′42″ N., 85°08′42″ W.; then to the point of beginning.
          (ii) The waters of Lake Michigan known as Green Bay from Rock Island Passage or Porte Des Morts Passage north to Escanaba Light at 45°44′48″ N., 087°02′14″ W.; south to the Fox River Entrance at 44°32′22″ N., 088°00′19″ W., to the Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal from Sherwood Point Light at 44°53′34″ N., 087°26′00″ W.; to Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal Light at 44°47′42″ N., 087°18′48″ W.; and then to the point of beginning.
          (b) Regulations. (1) In the RNAs under paragraph (a) of this section, the District Commander or respective COTP may issue orders to control vessel traffic for reasons which include but are not limited to: Channel obstructions, winter navigation, unusual weather conditions, or unusual water levels. Prior to issuing these orders, the District Commander or respective COTP will provide advance notice as reasonably practicable under the circumstances. The respective COTP may close and open these regulated navigation areas as ice conditions dictate.
          (2) Prior to the closing or opening of the regulated navigation areas, the COTP will give interested parties, including both shipping interests and island residents, not less than 72 hours notice of the action. This notice will be given through Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and press releases to the media (radio, print and television), local COTP will ensure widest dissemination. No vessel may navigate in a regulated navigation area which has been closed by the COTP. The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.13 apply. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to authorize vessels to operate outside of issued orders.
          (c) The following are safety zones:
          (1) Lake Erie. The area known as the Lake Erie Islands which is defined as the U.S. waters of Lake Erie at the intersection of the International Border at 082°55′00″ W., following the International Border eastward to the intersection of the International Border at 082°35′00″ W., moving straight south to position 41°25′00″ N., 082°35′00″ W., continuing west to position 41°25′00″ N., 082°55′00″ W., and ending north at the International Border and 082°55′00″ W.
          (2) Lake Huron. The waters of Lake Huron known as Saginaw Bay, Michigan; bounded by a line from Port Austin Reef Light (LL-10275) at 44°04′55″ N., 082°58′57″ W.; to Tawas Light (LL-11240) at 44°15′13″ N., 083°26′58″ W.; to Saginaw Bay Range Front Light (LL-10550) at 43°38′54″ N., 083°51′06″ W.; then to the point of beginning.
          (d) Enforcement. (1) The District Commander or respective Captain of the Port (COTP) will enforce these safety zones as ice conditions dictate. Under normal seasonal conditions, only one closing each winter and one opening each spring are anticipated.
          (2) Prior to closing or opening these safety zones, the District Commander or respective COTP will give the public advance notice, not less than 72 hours prior to the closure. This notice will be given through Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to Mariners, and press releases to the media (radio, print and television), local COTP will ensure widest dissemination. The general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. The District Commander or respective COTP retains the discretion to permit vessels to enter/transit a closed safety zone under certain circumstances.

          Dated: April 10, 2017.
          J.E. Ryan,
          RADM, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.

      [FR Doc. 2017-08132 Filed 4-20-17; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 123101B]
        Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings and Hearings

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of reports; public meetings and hearings.

          SUMMARY:
          The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has begun its annual preseason management process for the 2002 ocean salmon fisheries.  This document announces the availability of Council documents as well as the dates and locations of Council meetings and public hearings comprising the Council’s complete schedule of events for determining the annual proposed and final modifications to ocean salmon fishery management measures.  The agendas for the March and April Council meetings will be published in subsequent Federal Register documents prior to the actual meetings.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the salmon management options must be received by April 2, 2002, at 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time.

          ADDRESSES:

          Documents will be available from and written comments should be sent to Dr. Hans Radtke, Chairman, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 200, Portland, Oregon  97220, facsimile 503-326-6831.  For specific meeting and hearing locations, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Chuck Tracy, telephone 503-326-6352.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Schedule For Document Completion and Availability
        March 5, 2002:  “Review of 2001 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” and “Preseason Report I-Stock Abundance Analysis for 2002 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” will be available to the public from the Council office.
        March 26, 2002:  “Preseason Report II” and public hearing schedule will be mailed to the public.  The report will include a description of the adopted salmon management options and a summary of their biological and economic impacts.
        April 24, 2002:  Newsletter describing adopted ocean salmon fishing management measures will be mailed to the public.
        May 1, 2002:  Federal regulations will be implemented and “Preseason Report III- Analysis of Council-Adopted Ocean Salmon Management Measures for 2002 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” will be available from the Council office.
        Meetings and Hearings
        January 22-25, 2002:  The Salmon Technical Team (STT) will meet at the Council office in a public work session to draft “Review of 2001 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” and to consider any other estimation or methodology issues pertinent to the 2002 ocean salmon fisheries.
        February 19-22, 2002:  STT will meet at the Council office in a public work session to draft “Preseason Report I-Stock Abundance Analysis for 2002 Ocean Salmon Fisheries” and to consider any other estimation or methodology issues pertinent to the 2002 ocean salmon fisheries.
        March 11-15, 2002:  Council and advisory entities will meet at the Red Lion Hotel Sacramento, Sacramento, CA to adopt the 2002 salmon management options for public review.
        April 1-3, 2002:  Public hearings will be held to receive comments on the proposed ocean salmon fishery management options adopted by the Council.  All public hearings begin at 7 p.m. on the dates and at the locations specified here.
        April 1, 2002:  Chateau Westport, Beach Room, 710 W Hancock, Westport, WA  98595, telephone 360-268-9101.
        April 1, 2002:  Red Lion Hotel, South Umpqua Room, 1313 N Bayshore Drive, Coos Bay, OR  97420, telephone 541-267-4141.
        April 2, 2002:  Red Lion Hotel Eureka, Evergreen Room, 1929 Fourth Street, Eureka, CA  95501, telephone 707-445-0844.
        April 8-12, 2002:  Council and advisory entities meet at the  DoubleTree Hotel - Columbia River, 1401 North Hayden Island Drive, Portland, OR  97217, to adopt 2001 management measures for implementation by NMFS.
        April 9, 2002:  Testimony on the management options is taken during the Council meeting at the DoubleTree Hotel - Columbia River, Riverview Ballroom, 1401 North Hayden Island Drive, Portland, OR  97217, telephone 503-283-2111.
        Although nonemergency issues not contained in the STT meeting agendas may come before the STT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal STT action during these meetings.  STT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and to any issues arising after publication of this notice requiring emergency action under section 305 (c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the STT’s intent to take final action to address the emergency.
        Special Accommodations
        The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities.  Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at 503-326-6352 (voice), or 503-326-6831 (fax) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

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

          Dated:  January 3, 2002..
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-551 Filed 1-8-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 54
        [CC Docket No. 96-45; DA 00-1783]
        Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service: Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas; Extension of Comment Cycle

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of comment dates.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document the Commission extends the comment cycle for a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) released by the Commission on June 30, 2000 in FCC 00-208. The Commission has extended the comment cycle to give the public more time to respond. The Commission extends the original comment date by twenty-five days to September 1, 2000. The reply comment date has been extended by eighteen days to September 15, 2000.

          DATES:
          Submit comments on or before September 1, 2000 and reply comments on or before September 15, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554, Room TW-B204.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gene Fullano (202) 418-7400 TTY: (202) 418-0484.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On June 30, 2000, the Commission released the Twelfth Report and Order, 65 FR 47883 (August 4, 2000), and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 65 FR 47941 (August 4, 2000). This Order adopts measures to promote telecommunications subscribership and infrastructure deployment within federally recognized tribal lands. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on issues relating to the designation of eligible telecommunications carriers, establishing comment and reply comment dates of August 7 and August 28, 2000, respectively.

        We extend the comment and reply comment dates to September 1 and September 15, 2000, respectively. All comments should be filed pursuant to the instructions provided in the FNPRM.

          Katherine L. Schroder,
          Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division.

      [FR Doc. 00-20407 Filed 8-10-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P