        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 271
        [EPA-R10-RCRA-2006-0064; FRL-8157-6]
        Oregon: Proposed Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          Oregon has applied to EPA for final authorization of certain changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has reviewed Oregon's application, has preliminarily determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is proposing to authorize the state's changes.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by May 15, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2006-0064, by one of the following methods:
          • www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: hunt.jeff@epa.gov.
          • Mail: Jeff Hunt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Office of Air, Waste & Toxics (AWT-122) 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2006-0064. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center Home page at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 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 hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Office of Air, Waste & Toxics, 1200 Sixth Ave, Seattle, Washington, contact: Jeff Hunt, phone number: (206) 553-0256; or Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth, Portland Oregon, contact: Scott Latham, phone number (503) 229-5953.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Jeff Hunt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Office of Air, Waste & Toxics (AWT-122), 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101, phone number: (206) 553-0256, e-mail: hunt.jeff@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?
        States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the federal program. As the Federal program changes, states must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to state programs may be necessary when Federal or state statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, states must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
        B. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?
        EPA has preliminarily determined that Oregon's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we are proposing to grant Oregon final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Oregon will have responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders (except in Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized states before the states are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Oregon, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
        C. What Will Be the Effect If Oregon Is Authorized for These Changes?
        If Oregon is authorized for these changes, a facility in Oregon subject to RCRA will have to comply with the authorized State requirements in lieu of the corresponding Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Additionally, such persons will have to comply with any applicable federally-issued requirements, such as, for example, HSWA regulations issued by EPA for which the State has not received authorization, and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized State-issued requirements. Oregon continues to have enforcement responsibilities under its state hazardous waste management program for violations of its program, but EPA continues to have enforcement authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which includes, among others, the authority to:
        • Perform inspections; require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports;
        • Enforce RCRA requirements; suspend or revoke permits; and

        • Take enforcement actions regardless of whether Oregon has taken its own actions.

        The action to approve these revisions would not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Oregon will be authorized are already effective under State law and are not changed by today's action.
        D. What Happens If EPA Receives Comments on This Action?
        If EPA receives comments on this action, we will address those comments in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time.
        E. What Has Oregon Previously Been Authorized for?
        Oregon initially received final authorization on January 30, 1986, effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3779), to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. EPA granted authorization for changes to their program on March 30, 1990, effective on May 29, 1990 (55 FR 11909); August 5, 1994, effective October 4, 1994 (59 FR 39967); June 16, 1995, effective August 15, 1995 (60 FR 31642); October 10, 1995, effective December 7, 1995 (60 FR 52629); and September 10, 2002, effective September 10, 2002 (67 FR 57337).
        F. What Changes Are We Proposing?
        EPA is proposing to authorize revisions to Oregon's authorized program described in Oregon's official program revision application, submitted to EPA on December 19, 2005, and deemed complete by EPA on December 22, 2005.
        The following table, Table 1, identifies equivalent State regulatory analogues to the Federal regulations for those regulatory revisions for which Oregon is seeking authorization. All of the referenced analogous State authorities were legally adopted and effective as of October 24, 2003.

          Table 1.—Equivalent Analogues to the Federal Regulations

            Description of federal requirements CL #1

              Federal Register

            Analogous state authority (OAR 340-* * *)

            Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, CL 125
            58 FR 38816, 7/20/1993
            -100-0002.

            LDR Restrictions Phase III, Emergency Extension of the K088 Capacity Variance, CL 155
            62 FR 1992, 1/14/97
            -100-0002.

            LDR Restrictions Phase III, Emergency Extension of the K088 Capacity Variance, CL 160
            62 FR 37694, 7/14/97
            -100-0002.

            Petroleum Refining Process Wastes—Clarification, CL 187
            65 FR 36365, 6/8/2000
            -100-0002.

            Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards, Technical Corrections, CL 188
            65 FR 42292, 7/10/2000
            -100-0002, -101-0001, -104-0001, -105-0001.

            Chlorinated Aliphatics Listing and LDRs for Newly Identified Wastes, CL 189
            65 FR 67068, 11/8/2000
            -100-0002, -101-0001.

            LDRs Phase IV—Deferral for PCBs in Soil, CL 190
            65 FR 81373, 12/26/2000
            -100-0002.

            Mixed Waste rule, CL 191
            66 FR 27218, 5/16/2001
            -100-0002.

            Mixture and Derived—From Rules Revisions, CL 192A
            66 FR 27266, 5/16/2001
            -100-0002, -101-0001.

            LDR Restrictions Correction, CL 192B
            66 FR 27266, 5/16/2001
            -100-0002.

            Change of Official EPA Mailing Address, CL 193
            66 FR 34374, 6/28/2001
            -100-0002.

            Mixture and Derived—From Rules Revision II, CL 194
            66 FR 50332, 10/3/2001
            -100-0002, -101-0001.

            Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes Identification & Listing, CL 195
            66 FR 58258, 11/20/2001; 67 FR 17119, 4/9/2002
            -100-0002, -101-0001.

            CAMU Amendments, CL 196
            67 FR 2962, 1/22/2002
            -100-0002.

            Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards for Combustors; Interim Standards, CL 197
            67 FR 6792, 2/13/2002
            -100-0002, -104-0001, -105-0001.

            Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards for Combustors; Corrections, CL 198
            67 FR 6968, 2/14/2002
            -100-0002, 105-0001.

            Vacatur of Mineral Processing Spent Materials Being Reclaimed as Solid Wastes & TCLP Use with MGP Waste, CL 199
            67 FR 11251, 3/13/2002
            100-0002, 101-0001, 102-0010.

            Zinc Fertilizer Rule, CL 200
            67 FR 48393, 7/24/2002
            100-0002; 101-0004; -102-0010.

            1 CL # (Checklist) generally reflects changes made to the Federal regulations pursuant to a particular Federal Register notice. EPA publishes these checklists as aids for States to use for the development of their authorization applications. See EPA's RCRA State Authorization Web page at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/state/.

        G. What Other Revisions Are We Proposing to Oregon's Authorized Program?

        During a review of Oregon's regulations, we identified a variety of changes that Oregon had made to previously authorized hazardous waste provisions. EPA brought these changes to the attention of Oregon and confirmed with the State that the State-initiated changes generally correct typographical errors and printing errors, clarify and make the State's regulations more internally consistent, or bring the State regulations closer to the Federal language. In this proposed rulemaking we are also correcting errors made by EPA in previous authorization Federal Register notices for Oregon. The State's authorized hazardous waste program, as amended by these provisions, remains equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal RCRA program. The table below, Table 2, shows both the state initiated and the EPA initiated changes proposed for authorization revision.

          Table 2.—Revisions to Previously Authorized Rules 2

            Description of Federal requirements, CL # 3

              Federal Register

            Analogous state authority (OAR 340-* * *)

            Availability of Information

            -100-0003, -100-00005(1)-(5); -105-0012.

            Generator Requirements, CL II

            -100-0002; 102-0011(2), -0012, -0040, -0041, -0050.

            Permitting Requirements, CL V

            -100-0002; -105-0010, -0012, -0030, -0061; -106-0002.

            Small Quantity Generators, CL 23
            51 FR 10174, 3/24/86
            -100-0002; 101-0033; -102-0034, -0041, -0044; -105-0010.

            LDRs (Solvents and Dioxins), CL 34
            51 FR 40572, 11/07/86
            -100-0002, -100-0010, -102-0011(2)(d)&(e), -105-0014.

            Changes to Interim Status Facilities for Hazardous Waste Management Permits; Procedures for Post-Closure Permitting, CL 61
            54 FR 9596, 3/7/89
            -100-0002; -105-0001(3)&(4), -0010; -106-0002.

            Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, Corrections & Technical Amendments, CL 94
            56 FR 32688, 7/17/91
            -100-0002 -100-0004; -105-0010.

            Recycled Used Oil Management Standards, CL 112
            57 FR 41566, 9/10/92
            -100-0002(2); -111-0000.

            Recycled Used Oil Management Standards; Technical Amendments and Corrections, CL 122
            58 FR 33341, 5/3/93; 58 FR 33341, 6/17/93
            -100-0002(2); -111-0000, -0010, -0020, -0032, -0035, -0040, -0050, -0060, -0070.

            Recycled Used Oil Management Standards; Technical Amendments and Corrections II, CL 130
            59 FR 10550, 3/4/94
            -100-0002; -111-0000; -111-0010.

            Universal Waste Rule: General Provisions, CL 142A
            60 FR 26942, 5/11/95
            -100-0002; -102-0011(e); -113-0000, -0020, -0020(1)-(4), -0030, -0040, -0050.

            LDRs Phase III-Decharacterized Wastewaters Carbamate Wastes, and Spent Potliners, CL 151
            61 FR 15566, 4/8/96
            -100-0002.

            Recycled Used Oil Management Standards; Technical Correction and Clarification, CL 166
            63 FR 24963, 5/6/98
            -100-0002; -111-0000, -0032, -0050.

            Belvill Exclusion Revisions and Clarification, CL 167E
            63 FR 28556, 5/26/98
            -100-0002; -101-0001, -0004.

            Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirement (HWIR-Media), CL 175
            63 FR 65874, 11/30/98
            -100-0002; -100-0010; -105-0003, -105-0115.

            Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards for Combustors, CL 182
            64 FR 62828, 9/30/99
            -100-0002; -101-0001; -104-0001, -0340; -105-0001.

            Universal Waste Rule as of 12/31/02, Special Consolidated Checklist
            60 FR 25492, 5/11/95; 63 FR 71225, 12/24/98; 64 FR 36466, 7/6/99
            -100-0002, -0010(3)(j); -102-0011(e); -113-0000, -0010, -0020, -0030, -0040, -0050, -0060, -0070.

            2 For further discussion on where the revised State rules differ from the Federal Rules refer to the authorization revision application and the administrative record for this proposed rule.

            3 CL # (Checklist) generally reflects changes made to the Federal regulations pursuant to a particular Federal Register notice. EPA publishes these checklists as aids for States to use for the development of their authorization applications. See EPA's RCRA State Authorization Web page at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/state/.

        H. Who Handles Permits After the Authorization Takes Effect?
        Oregon will continue to issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. If EPA issued permits prior to authorizing Oregon for these revisions, these permits would continue in force until the effective date of the State's issuance or denial of a State hazardous waste permit, at which time EPA would modify the existing EPA permit to expire at an earlier date, terminate the existing EPA permit for cause, or allow the existing EPA permit to otherwise expire by its term, except for those facilities located in Indian Country. EPA will not issue new permits or new portions of permits for provisions for which Oregon is authorized after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which Oregon is not yet authorized.
        I. What Is Codification and Is EPA Codifying Oregon's Hazardous Waste Program as Authorized in This Rule?
        Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. This is done by referencing the authorized State rules in 40 CFR part 272. EPA is reserving the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart N for codification of this current revision to Oregon's program at a later date.
        J. How Would Authorizing Oregon for These Revisions Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in Oregon?
        Oregon is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste program in Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian country includes:
        1. All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations within or abutting the State of Oregon;
        2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and
        3. Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation that qualifies as Indian country.
        Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. EPA will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program in these lands.
        K. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        This proposed rule seeks to revise the State of Oregon's authorized hazardous waste program pursuant to section 3006 of RCRA and imposes no requirements other than those currently imposed by State law. This rule complies with applicable executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:
        1. Executive Order 12866

        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant,” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. It has been determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
        2. Paperwork Reduction Act

        This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., because this proposed rule does not establish or modify any information or recordkeeping requirements for the regulated community and only seeks to authorize the pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
        Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
        An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
        3. Regulatory Flexibility

        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., generally requires federal agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business defined by the Small Business Administrations' Size Regulations at 13 CFR part 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. EPA has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on small entities because the proposed rule will only have the effect of authorizing pre-existing requirements under State law and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. After considering the economic impacts of today's rule, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the rule an explanation why the alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It imposes no new enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Similarly, EPA has also determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 203 of the UMRA.
        5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government.” This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule seeks authorization of pre-existing State rules. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
        6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

        Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
        7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
        Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866 and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
        8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined under Executive Order 12866.
        9. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rule does not involve “technical standards” as defined by the NTTAA. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
        10. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations
        To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, and consistent with the principles set forth in the report on the National Performance Review, each Federal agency must make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States and its territories and possessions, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands. Because this rule proposes authorization of pre-existing State rules and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law and there are no anticipated significant adverse human health or environmental effects, the rule is not subject to Executive Order 12898.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
          Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Authority:
          This proposed action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

          Dated: April 3, 2006.
          L. Michael Bogert,
          Regional Administrator, Region 10.

      [FR Doc. E6-5328 Filed 4-13-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9840-4]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of intent.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site (Site) located in Perry Township, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation, maintenance, and Five Year Reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by August 29, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email:
            Epps.John@epa.gov.
          • Fax: (215) 814-3002.
          • Mail: John Epps, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3HS22, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
          • Hand delivery: John Epps, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3HS22, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
          Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002. 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 email. 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 email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, 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, 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 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 are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

          EPA Administrative Records Room, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-3157, Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; by appointment only.
          Karns City Area High School Office, 1446 Kittanning, Karns City, PA 16041, (726) 756-2030, Please call to schedule an appointment.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          John Epps, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3HS22, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-3144, Email: Epps.John@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the “Rules and Regulations” Section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Craig Farm Drum Superfund Site without prior Notice of Intent to Delete because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not take further action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to Delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

        For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

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

          Authority:
          33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

          Dated: July 10, 2013.
          W.C. Early,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

      [FR Doc. 2013-18190 Filed 7-29-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 258
        [EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0126; FRL-9936-10-OSWER]
        RIN-2050-AG75
        Revision to the Research, Development and Demonstration Permits Rule for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the maximum permit term for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) units operating under Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) permits. The RD&D permit program, which began in 2004, allows landfill facilities to utilize innovative and new methods that vary from the prescribed run-on control systems, liquids restrictions, and final cover criteria if these systems are determined by the Director of states with EPA-approved RD&D programs, as defined in 40 CFR 258.2, to meet the criteria in 40 CFR 258.4. The current rule limits permits for these units to 3 years each, renewable 3 times for a total permit term of 12 years. If finalized, this rule will allow the Director of an approved State to increase the number of permit renewals to 6, for a total permit term of up to 21 years. The EPA is not proposing any other changes to the existing MSWLF RD&D permit program at this time.

          DATES:
          Comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before December 14, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0126 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Craig Dufficy, Materials Recovery and Waste Management Division of the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (mail code 5304P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 703-308-9037; email: Dufficy.craig@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. General Information
        A. Does this action apply to me?
        Entities potentially affected by this proposal are public or private owners or operators of MSWLFs. These entities include:

            Category
            Example of affected entities

            State Governments
            Regulatory agencies and agencies operating landfills.

            Industry
            Owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfills.

            Municipalities, including Tribal Governments
            Owners or operators of municipal solid waste landfills.

        The affected entities may also fall under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 924110, Sanitation engineering agencies, government; or 562212, Solid Waste Landfill. This list of sectors is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA believes could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your entity is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 258 and the Research, Development, and Demonstration Permits for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills final rule published in the Federal Register at 69 FR 13242, March 22, 2004, (“2004 RD&D rule”). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        B. What action is the agency taking?
        The EPA is proposing to revise the maximum permit term for MSWLF units operating under RD&D permits. In effect, this proposed rule, if finalized, would allow the Directors of a states with EPA-approved RD&D programs to increase the number of 3-year permit renewals from 3 to 6, for a total permit term of 21 years.
        The basis for the proposed extension of the permit period to up to 21 years is to provide more time to support research into the performance of bioreactors, alternative covers and run-on systems. The EPA believes the period of 21 years strikes a balance between providing more time for projects to continue operations as research facilities, while providing enough time for the EPA to consider making permanent changes to the Part 258 MSWLF regulations.
        C. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?
        The authority for this proposal is sections 1008, 2002(a), 4004, 4005(c), 4010 and 8001(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c), 6949a, 6981(a).
        D. What are the anticipated effects and benefits of this action?
        The anticipated effect of this proposed action, when final, is to provide the Director of an approved State the ability to issue renewals to existing RD&D permits, as well as new RD&D permits, for up to 21 years instead of 12 years. During this time, the EPA will continue to evaluate data from these facilities. The universe of facilities presently covered by this action is approximately 30 facilities currently operating with RD&D permits, and one on tribal lands. Additional facilities may also continue to seek an RD&D permit after this action is finalized. The EPA has no information with which to estimate whether or not, nor how many, new facilities will seek RD&D permits. Owners/operators operating under existing RD&D permits are not expected to incur any new costs as a result of this proposed rule. The annual costs for ongoing recordkeeping and annual reporting requirements are estimated at $2,410 per facility.
        It is important to note that applying for a RD&D permit is voluntary. This proposed action would merely allow the Director of an approved State to increase the number of extensions of the permit period for existing facilities, or offer more extensions of the permit term for new facilities, for those owners and operators who choose to participate in this research program; it would not impose any new regulatory burden. Increasing the possible number of extensions of the RD&D permit term may benefit current owners and operators of RD&D units by providing additional time to recover their costs, if the Director of an approved State chooses to extend existing permits. For example, data from one RD&D permitted facility shows a projected increase of 3% in the rate of return for 20 years compared to 12 years.1

            1 See docket # EPA-HQ-RCRA-2015-0126 for supporting documentation.

        Increasing the possible number of extensions of RD&D permit terms will provide more time for the EPA to collect additional data on the potential benefits of the approaches being taken under these RD&D permits. These potential benefits include: Decreased costs for leachate treatment due to leachate recirculation in bioreactors; increased revenue from the sale of landfill gas for use as a renewable source of fuel; decreased risk due to a reduction in the transportation of leachate for treatment; accelerated production and capture of landfill gas for use as a renewable fuel; and, accelerated stabilization, and corresponding decreased post-closure care activities, for facilities as a result of the accelerated decomposition of waste.
        II. Background
        Under Subchapter IV of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6941-6949a, the EPA has promulgated minimum national standards for MSWLFs at 40 CFR part 258. See 56 FR 50978 (October 9, 1991). RCRA also directs the EPA to encourage research and development for, among other things, the development and application of new and improved methods of collecting and disposing of solid waste. 42 U.S.C. 6981(a).
        The initial MSWLF regulations addressed seven basic areas: Location restrictions; operation; design; groundwater monitoring; corrective action; closure and post-closure care; and financial assurance. These MSWLF landfill regulations focused on dry-tomb landfills to minimize the possibility of groundwater contamination from the production and subsequent leakage of leachate. After the promulgation of those standards, the EPA became aware that landfill technology had advanced sufficiently that some alternative designs and operations could benefit from further study through research and demonstration projects. For example, some of these methods, particularly the addition of liquids and leachate recirculation, could accelerate biodegradation and provide additional potential benefits. These include:

        —Acceleration of landfill gas generation which can be collected as a source of renewable fuel.
        —Minimization of leachate treatment requirements during the operational life of the landfill.
        —More rapid reduction in concentration of leachate constituents of concern, thereby limiting the corresponding post-closure activities for leachate control.
        —An increase in the rate of landfill settlement resulting in the more efficient use of permitted landfill capacity.

        As a means to advance innovation in landfill design, in 2000 the EPA selected four landfills to participate in its Project XL program. The landfills are located in Buncombe County, North Carolina; Yolo County, California; King George County, Virginia; and the Maplewood facility in Amelia Country, Virginia.
        In addition to Project XL, in 2001 the EPA began using Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) to promote collaborative research between federal and non-federal scientists as an additional means to explore the addition of liquids to landfills to promote faster biodegradation and stabilization. Bioreactor landfill sites operating with CRADAs include the Outer Loop landfill in Louisville, Kentucky; and the Polk County landfill in Florida.

        Subsequently, in 2004, the EPA amended 40 CFR part 258 MSWLF regulations to create a broader RD&D research program. The 2004 RD&D rule, which amended § 258.4 enabled the Director of an approved State to allow RD&D projects with variances to specific provisions of the MSWLF criteria, including variances from operating criteria in part 258 subpart C with respect to run-on controls (§ 258.26(a)(1)) and the liquids restrictions in § 258.28(a). In addition, the rule allows an additional variance for the final cover requirements set forth in the closure criteria in §§ 258.60(a)(1), (a)(2) and (b)(1). The 2004 RD&D rule limits the duration of the initial permit to 3 years. The permit can be renewed for up to three additional 3-year terms, for a total of 12 years. More information on the RD&D rule can be found in the final rule preamble. See 69 FR 13242, March 22, 2004.
        As of March 2014, there were 30 active RD&D projects in 11 approved states and one project on tribal lands.2
           The maximum permit period for the first of these bioreactors is coming to an end, and the EPA proposes to allow the Director of an approved State to continue to extend the permit period for up to a total of 21 years to allow for continued research.

            2 Permitting of Landfill Bioreactor Operations: Ten years After the RD&D Rule, EPA document number EPA/600/R-14/335.

        A. What the EPA Is Proposing
        The EPA is proposing to allow Directors of states with EPA-approved RD&D programs to increase the maximum term for RD&D permits from 12 to 21 years at 40 CFR 258.4(e)(1), to provide more time to support research into the performance of bioreactors, alternative covers and run-on systems. In effect, this proposed rule, if finalized, would allow the Director of an approved State to increase the number of permit renewals from three to six. The EPA is not proposing any other changes to the RD&D permit program at this time. The EPA is not reopening, nor will it respond to comments on, any other provision of the existing RD&D rule or MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR part 258.
        Separately from this proposal, the EPA expects to publish an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking comment on revising other sections of the MSWLF (40 CFR part 258) criteria to authorize bioreactor operation (and other changes to the national criteria) on a permanent basis. Interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on broader issues relating to bioreactor operation during the public comment period on that ANPRM.
        B. Basis for This Proposal
        In the 2004 RD&D final rule, the EPA made clear its intention that MSWLF RD&D permits be of limited duration, yet also provide data to support future rulemaking. This proposal is intended to further these dual goals. Although the EPA does not expect that all RD&D permits will necessarily extend to the full permit term, the EPA has since learned that the 12-year time limit may not be sufficient to realize potential benefits in all cases. Thus, extending the permit period for up to 21 years will provide more time to collect data on potential benefits and any problems without making the permit period so long as to be open-ended.
        Extending the maximum permit term will help continuing efforts to collect data at existing RD&D units. If the EPA does not take this action, owners and operators using existing RD&D permits would need to make significant modifications to their disposal units or cease operation altogether, before reaching the end of their normal operations or closure. Because of the potential environmental benefits that may be derived from bioreactors, alternative cover designs, and run-on systems, the EPA believes that it is important to extend the maximum permit period to 21 years to provide more time to characterize the performance of RD&D projects without making the permit period so long as to be open-ended.
        The EPA also wishes to enhance the economic feasibility to build and operate bioreactors or final cover variances in the future, and to thereby provide additional sources of data. In addition, the EPA has heard from stakeholders that the current 12-year maximum permit period is an insufficient length of time for potential owners and operators of bioreactors to recoup their initial investment. These stakeholders have indicated limiting the permit period to 12 years has the unintended consequence of discouraging the development of bioreactors.
        C. Implementation of This Proposal

        This proposal does not require states with EPA-approved RD&D programs to modify their solid waste permit programs. Since this proposed change to the RD&D rule provides more flexibility than existing federal criteria, states are not required to amend existing solid waste permit programs that have been determined by the EPA to be adequate under 40 CFR part 239. States will have the option to amend their programs once this proposal is finalized. At the same time, the RD&D rule (including this proposed revision of the maximum permit term) is not self-implementing and states are required to adopt the RD&D rule and obtain EPA approval for their RD&D program in order to issue a RD&D permit. States previously approved to issue RD&D permits that wish to increase the total length of time for which RD&D permits can be issued will need to notify the EPA in accordance with 40 CFR part 239. States with EPA-approved solid waste permit programs that have not previously sought approval for an RD&D program and now wish to do so will need to apply to EPA for approval of an RD&D program, including approval of the longer time period allowed by this proposal. Any state without an EPA-approved solid waste permit program may submit an application to the EPA for a determination of adequacy under 40 CFR part 239 and may include a request for approval of the RD&D permit provisions reflecting the longer time period allowed by this proposal. For municipal solid waste landfill units located in Indian Country, the EPA intends to consider the longer maximum permit term in this proposal when issuing or modifying any site-specific RD&D rule. The EPA has previously issued draft guidance on the site-specific flexibility request process in Indian Country. See Site-specific Flexibility Requests for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills in Indian Country, EPA 530-R-97-016, August 1997.
        III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
        This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

        This action does not impose any new Information Collection Request (ICR) burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control numbers 2050-0152 and 2050-0122. The purpose of this action is to extend the maximum allowable permit period for this program and this change to the RD&D program itself does not impose any additional reporting requirements. The OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations in two different, applicable ICRs. The ICRs affected by this proposal are for 40 CFR part 239, Requirements for State Permit Program Determination of Adequacy and part 258, MSWLF Criteria. The OMB has reviewed the ICR for part 239 (ICR# 1608.07, OMB# 2050-0152.) The EPA will request comments under the ICR review process from states that plan to make these revisions so that the EPA can better understand the expected burden that would be incurred by states who wish to make these changes. In addition, the EPA will also be requesting information from MSWLF owners/operators on the reporting burden that they would incur under an extended permit term provided in accordance with this proposal under the part 258, MSWLF criteria ICR (ICR# 1381.09, OMB# 2050-0122) when that review process begins. This process is scheduled to be completed in June 2016.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
        I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This proposed rule will not create any additional burden for small entities. Small entities are not required to take any action as a consequence of this proposed rule, and this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
        This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. The costs involved in this action are imposed only by voluntary participation in a federal program.
        E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Although Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposal, the EPA has consulted with states through the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials during the development of this proposal.
        F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. The EPA has concluded that this proposal will have no new tribal implications, nor would it present any additional burden on the tribes. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
        G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
        The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
        H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
        This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
        This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
        J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
        The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations.
        The underlying RD&D rule requires any RD&D permit to include such terms and conditions at least as protective as the criteria for municipal solid waste landfills to assure protection of human health and the environment, and this proposal does not reopen or otherwise change that requirement. Therefore, the EPA finds that the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 258
          Environmental protection, Municipal landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.

          Dated: October 30, 2015.
          Gina McCarthy,
          Administrator.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 258 as follows:

          PART 258—CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS

        1. The authority citation for part 258 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          33 U.S.C. 1345(d) and (e); 42 U.S.C. 6902(a), 6907, 6912(a), 6944, 6945(c) and 6949a(c), 6981(a).

          Subpart A—General

        2. Revise § 258.4(e)(1) to read as follows:

          § 258.4
          Research, development, and demonstration permits.

          (e) * * *
          (1) The total term for a permit for a project including renewals may not exceed twenty-one (21) years; and

      [FR Doc. 2015-28666 Filed 11-12-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        RIN 0648-BB92
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; National Standard Guidelines; Meeting Announcement

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of public meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces a public meeting to solicit comments on the proposed revisions to the General section of the National Standard (NS) guidelines and the guidelines for NS1, NS3, and NS7 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), which published January 20, 2015.

          DATES:
          The meeting will be held on March 25, 2015, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern time. Written comments accepted through June 30, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meeting will be held at the following location: The NOAA Science Center, 1301 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910; telephone: 301-427-8563.
          You may submit written comments on the proposed rule, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2012-0059, by any of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2012-0059, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

          • Mail: Submit written comments to Wesley Patrick, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13357, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
          • Fax: 301-713-1193; Attn: Wesley Patrick.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Wesley Patrick at (301) 427-8563 or via email at Wesley.Patrick@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On January 20, 2015, NMFS published proposed revisions to the General section of the National Standard (NS) guidelines and the guidelines for NS1, NS3, and NS7 in the Federal Register (80 FR 2786). The proposed revisions include the following: (1) Add a recommendation that Councils reassess the objectives of their fisheries on a regular basis; (2) consolidate and clarify guidance on identifying whether stocks require conservation and management; (3) provide additional flexibility in managing data limited stocks; (4) revise the guidance on stock complexes to encourage the use of indicator stocks; (5) describe how aggregate maximum sustainable yield (MSY) estimates can be used; (6) propose a definition for a depleted stock; (7) provide increased stability in fisheries by providing guidance on the use of multi-year overfishing determinations; (8) revise the guidance on optimum yield (OY) to improve clarity and better describe the role of OY under the Annual Catch Limit (ACL) framework; (9) clarify the guidance on acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rules, describe how the ABC control rules can allow for phase-in adjustments to ABC, and allow for carry-over of all or some of an unused portion of the ACL; (10) revise the guidance on accountability measures (AMs) to improve clarity; (11) clarify the guidance on establishing ACL and AM mechanisms in FMPs; and (12) provide flexibility in rebuilding stocks. Additional information about this proposed rule can be found at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/national_standards/ns1_revisions.html.

        Special Accommodations
        These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other aids, and requests for special accommodations or needs should be directed to Wesley Patrick at (301) 427-8563 at least 5 business days in advance of the meeting date.

          Authority:
          5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: February 6, 2015.
          Emily H. Menashes,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-02889 Filed 2-10-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [4500030115]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Three Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of petition findings and initiation of a status review.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on three petitions to add species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), or to revise the critical habitat designation for a listed species. Based on our review, we find that of the two petitions to add species to the list, one presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we announce that we plan to initiate a review of the status of Mojave poppy bee (Perdita meconis) to determine whether the petitioned action is warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding that species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month petition finding, which will address whether or not the petitioned action is warranted, in accordance with the Act. We find that the second petition to add a species to the list does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review of Yellowstone National Park bison (population of Bison bison bison) in response to the petition. We refer to this finding as a “not substantial” petition finding. Lastly, we find that the third petition—a petition to revise the critical habitat designation for the currently listed Mount Graham red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis)—presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we announce that we plan to determine how we will proceed with the request to revise a critical habitat designation for the species.

          DATES:
          These findings were made on September 6, 2019. As we commence work on the status review, we seek any new information concerning the status of, or threats to, the species or its habitat. Any information received during our work on the status review will be considered.

          ADDRESSES:

            Supporting documents: Summaries of the bases for the petition findings contained in this document are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). In addition, this supporting information is available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by contacting the appropriate person, as specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

            Status review and critical habitat review: If you have new scientific or commercial data or other information concerning the status of, or threats to, the species for which we are initiating a status review, or information concerning the critical habitat of the species for which we are initiating a review of the critical habitat designation, please provide those data or information by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket number (see Tables 1 and 2 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Then, click on the “Search” button. After finding the correct document, you may submit information by clicking on “Comment Now!” If your information will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see Tables 1 and 2 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: JAO/1N, 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us.

            Not-substantial petition finding: A summary of the basis for the not-substantial petition finding contained in this document is available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see Table 3 under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). This supporting information is also available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, by contacting the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If you have new information concerning the status of, or threats to, this species or its habitat, please submit that information to the appropriate person.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

              Species common name
              Contact person

              Mojave poppy bee
              Glen Knowles, 702-515-5230; glen_knowles@fws.gov

              Mount Graham red squirrel
              Jeff Humphrey, 602-242-0210; jeff_humphrey@fws.gov

              Yellowstone National Park bison
              Marjorie Nelson, 303-236-4258; marjorie_nelson@fws.gov

          If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) in 50 CFR part 17, as well as for designating and revising critical habitat for listed species.
        For Petitions To Add or Remove Species From the Lists, or Change the Listed Status of a Species

        Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to add a species to the Lists (“list” a species), remove a species from the Lists (“delist” a species), or change a listed species' status from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered (“reclassify” a species) presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        For petitions to add, remove, or reclassify a species, our regulations establish that substantial scientific or commercial information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to “credible scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)).

        A species may be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The five factors are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);
        (c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); or

        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).

        These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
        We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to, or are reasonably likely to, affect individuals of a species negatively. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself. However, the mere identification of any threat(s) may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition is substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The information presented in the petition must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these threats may be affecting the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
        If we find that a petition presents such information, our subsequent status review will evaluate all identified threats by considering the individual-, population-, and species-level effects and the expected response by the species. We will evaluate individual threats and their expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that are expected to have positive effects on the species—such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts that may ameliorate threats or the effects of threats. It is only after conducting this cumulative analysis of threats and the actions that may ameliorate them, and the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future, that we can determine whether the species meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
        If we find that a petition to add, remove, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the Act requires us to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, and we will subsequently complete a status review in accordance with our prioritization methodology for 12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016).
        For Petitions To Revise Critical Habitat

        Section 4(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to revise a critical habitat designation presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90-days of our receipt of the petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        For petitions to revise critical habitat, our regulations establish that substantial scientific or commercial information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to “credible scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the revision proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(i)(1)(i)).
        In determining whether a revision of critical habitat may be warranted, we may consider the following:
        (1) Areas that the current designation does not include that should be included, or includes that should no longer be included, and any benefits of designating or not designating these specific areas as critical habitat;
        (2) The physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species and whether they may require special management considerations or protection;
        (3) For any areas petitioned to be added to critical habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed, information indicating that the specific areas contain one or more of the physical or biological features (including characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions) that are essential to the conservation of the species, or that these features do not require special management considerations or protection;
        (4) For any areas petitioned for removal from currently designated critical habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed, information indicating that the specific areas do not contain the physical or biological features (including characteristics that support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions) that are essential to the conservation of the species, or that these features do not require special management considerations or protection; and
        (5) For areas petitioned to be added to or removed from critical habitat that were outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed, information indicating why the petitioned areas are or are not essential for the conservation of the species.
        If we find that a petition to revise critical habitat presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested revision may be warranted, section 4(b)(3)(D)(ii) of the Act requires us to determine how to proceed with the requested revision.
        Summaries of Petition Findings

        The petition findings contained in this document are listed in the tables below, and the basis for each finding, along with supporting information, is available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number.

          Table 1—Status Review

            Common name
            Docket No.
            URL to docket on http://www.regulations.gov

            Mojave poppy bee
            FWS-R8-ES-2019-0083

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R8-ES-2019-0083

          Table 2—Critical Habitat Review

            Common name
            Docket No.
            URL to docket on http://www.regulations.gov

            Mount Graham red squirrel
            FWS-R2-ES-2019-0084

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R2-ES-2019-0084

          Table 3—Not-Substantial Petition Finding

            Common name
            Docket No.
            URL to docket on http://www.regulations.gov

            Yellowstone National Park bison
            FWS-R6-ES-2019-0085

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R6-ES-2019-0085

        Evaluation of a Petition To List the Mojave Poppy Bee
        Species and Range
        Mojave poppy bee (Perdita meconis); Nevada.
        Petition History
        On October 17, 2018, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, requesting that the Mojave poppy bee be listed as endangered and that critical habitat be designated for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding
        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the Mojave poppy bee due to potential threats associated with the following: grazing, recreation, and gypsum mining (Factor A); and competition with nonnative honey bees (Factor E). The petition also presented substantial information that the existing regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate to address impacts of these threats (Factor D).

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2019-0083 under Supporting Documents.
        Evaluation of a Petition To Revise the Critical Habitat Designation for the Mount Graham Red Squirrel
        Species and Range
        Mount Graham red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis); Arizona.
        Petition History
        On December 14, 2017, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity requesting that critical habitat for the Mount Graham red squirrel be revised under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding

        The Mount Graham red squirrel is a small, grayish-brown arboreal subspecies that is tinged rusty or yellowish along the back and occurs in high-elevation forests down to approximately 7,500 feet (2,286 meters) in the Pinaleño Mountains, Graham County, Arizona. On January 5, 1990, we published a final rule in the Federal Register (55 FR 425) designating critical habitat in three units of dense stands of mature spruce-fir forest, for a total of about 2,000 acres (800 hectares).
        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that revising critical habitat for the Mount Graham red squirrel may be warranted. Our conclusion is based primarily on new information indicating significant changes to the forest currently designated as critical habitat and regarding the squirrel's use of habitat previously considered to be of lesser importance.

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2019-0084 under Supporting Documents.
        Evaluation of a Petition To List the Yellowstone National Park Bison
        Species and Range
        Plains bison (population of Bison bison bison); in and around Yellowstone National Park in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
        Petition History

        On November 14, 2014, we received a petition from Western Watersheds Project and Buffalo Field Campaign, requesting that Plains bison in and around Yellowstone National Park (Yellowstone National Park bison) be listed as an endangered or threatened distinct population segment (DPS) under the Act (first petition). The first petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). On March 2, 2015, we received a second petition from James Horsley, which also requested that Yellowstone National Park bison be listed as endangered or threatened under the Act (second petition). On January 12, 2016, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (81 FR 1368) concluding that the two petitions did not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. On September 26, 2016, petitioners from the first petition, along with a third party (Friends of Animals), brought suit under the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act asserting that our determination was arbitrary and capricious. On January 31, 2018, the Court remanded the case for the Service to conduct a new 90-day finding. On March 16, 2018, we received a new petition from James Horsley, requesting emergency listing for Yellowstone National Park bison (third petition). The third petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses all three petitions.
        Finding

        Based on our review of the petitions and sources cited in the petitions, we find that the petitions do not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for Yellowstone National Park bison. Because the petitions do not present substantial information indicating that listing Yellowstone National Park bison may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review of this species in response to the petitions. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Yellowstone National Park bison or its habitat at any time (see Not-substantial petition finding under ADDRESSES, above).

        The basis for our finding on these petitions, and other information regarding our review of the petitions, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2019-0085 under Supporting Documents.

        Conclusion
        On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the petitions under sections 4(b)(3)(A) and 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for the Mojave poppy bee and Mount Graham red squirrel present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. We are, therefore, initiating a status review of the Mojave poppy bee to determine whether the action is warranted under the Act. At the conclusion of the status review, we will issue a finding, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether the petitioned action is not warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species. In addition, we are initiating a review of the critical habitat designation for the Mount Graham red squirrel to determine whether revising the designation is warranted. At the conclusion of the review, we will issue a finding, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(D)(ii) of the Act, and we will determine how to proceed.
        Lastly, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for Yellowstone National Park bison do not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested action may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review for Yellowstone National Park bison.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this document are staff members of the Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

        The authority for these actions is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: August 29, 2019.
          Stephen Guertin,
          Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising the Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2019-19226 Filed 9-5-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        41 CFR Part 102-118
        [FMR Case 2005-102-5]
        RIN: 3090-AI14
        Federal Management Regulation; Transportation Payment and Audit—Use of SF 1113, Public Voucher for Transportation Charges

          AGENCY:
          Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The General Services Administration proposes to amend the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) to discontinue use of the hard copy, paper construction of Standard Form (SF) 1113, Public Voucher for Transportation Charges, and its memorandum copy, SF 1113-A. Agencies are required to use electronic commerce for receiving bills and paying for transportation and transportation services. By using electronic commerce, the SF 1113 is not needed and is not essential for the transportation service provider to get paid. The FMR and any corresponding documents may be accessed at GSA's website at http://www.gsa.gov/fmr.

          DATES:

            Comment Date: Comments must be received by May 15, 2006.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments identified by FMR case 2005-102-5 by any of the following methods:

        • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

        • Agency Web Site: http://www.gsa.gov/fmr. Click on FMR Proposed Rules, and the FMR case number to submit comments.
        • E-mail: fmrcase.2005-102-5@gsa.gov. Include FMR case 2005-102-5 in the subject line of the message.
        • Fax: 202-501-4067.
        • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (VIR), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.

          Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FMR case 2005-102-5 in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.gsa.gov/fmr, including any personal information provided. Click on FMR Public Comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          The Regulatory Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405, at (202) 208-7312 for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Ted J. Bembenek, Jr., Office of Governmentwide Policy (MT), at (202) 208-7629. Please cite FMR case 2005-102-5.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        A. Background
        As the Government continues to make systematic management improvements across its business lines, use of electronic commerce has become a significant link and critical tool in accomplishing this task. In its role as a Governmentwide policymaker, GSA will use every feasible opportunity to incorporate and promote electronic commerce to the fullest extent of its authority, particularly in relation to the procurement, billing, and payment of transportation services.

        In part 102-118 of the Federal Management Regulation (FMR), (41 CFR part 102-118, Transportation Payment and Audit), GSA prescribes Standard Form (SF) 1113 for use by transportation service providers to bill transportation charges to the Government. GSA believes greater efficiencies can be gained for the Government and transportation service providers alike by requiring use of electronic commerce in all areas of transportation. This includes the use of electronic systems for ordering, receiving bills and paying for transportation and transportation services. This requirement will bring the Government closer to achieving a paperless environment and parity with the best business practices used in the private sector. Comments received from an exploratory notice published in the Federal Register at 69 FR 36088, June 28, 2004, generally favored the electronic billing of transportation charges.
        B. Substantive Changes
        This proposed rule discontinues the requirement for use of the paper construction of Standard Form (SF) 1113, Public Voucher for Transportation Charges, and its memorandum copy, SF 1113-A. Agencies are required to use electronic commerce for receiving bills and paying for transportation and transportation services. By using electronic commerce, the SF 1113 is not needed and is not essential for the transportation service provider to get paid. Paper invoices will no longer be received.
        C. Executive Order 12866
        GSA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant rule for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993.
        D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        This proposed rule is not expected 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. A regulatory flexibility analysis has therefore not been prepared.
        E. Paperwork Reduction Act

        The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed rule does not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or the collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

        F. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
        This proposed rule is exempt from Congressional review prescribed under 5 U.S.C. 801 since it relates solely to agency management and personnel.

          List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 102-118

        Accounting, Claims, Government property management, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surplus Government property, Transportation.

          Dated: February 16, 2006.
          John G. Sindelar,
          Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Governmentwide Policy.

        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, GSA proposes to amend 41 CFR part 102-118 as set forth below:

          PART 102-118—TRANSPORTATION PAYMENT AND AUDIT
          1. The authority citation for 41 CFR part 102-118 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
             31 U.S.C. 3726; and 40 U.S.C. 121(c), and 49 U.S.C. 10721, 13712, and 15504.

          2. Revise § 102-118.65 to read as follows:

            § 102-118.65
            Is my agency required to use electronic billing for payment and billing of transportation services?
            Yes, your agency must use electronic billing for the procurement and billing of transportation services.

            § 102-118.100
            [Removed and Reserved]
            3. Remove and reserve § 102-118.100.
            4. Revise § 102-118.130 to read as follows:

            § 102-118.130
            Must my agency use a GBL for express, courier, or small package shipments?
            No. However, in using commercial forms, all shipments must be subject to the terms and conditions set forth for the use of a bill of lading for the Government. Any other non-conflicting applicable contracts or agreements between the transportation service provider (TSP) and an agency involving buying transportation services for Government traffic remain binding. When you use GSA's schedule for small package express delivery, the terms and conditions of that contract are binding.
            5. Revise § 102-118.195 to read as follows:

            § 102-118.195
            What documents must a transportation service provider (TSP) send to receive payment for a transportation billing?
            For shipments bought on a transportation document, the transportation service provider (TSP) must submit an original properly certified International Government bill of lading (GBL) or bill of lading. The TSP must submit this package and all supporting documents to the agency paying office.
            6. Revise § 102-118.560 to read as follows:

            § 102-118.560
            What is the required format that a transportation service provider (TSP) must use to file an administrative claim?

            A transportation service provider (TSP) must bill for charges, when deemed necessary by your agency, in the manner prescribed in the “U.S. Government Freight Transportation Handbook” or the “U.S. Government Passenger Transportation Handbook”. To get a copy of these publications, you may write to: General Services Administration, Federal Supply Service Audit Division (FBA), 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, www.gsa.gov/transaudits.

      [FR Doc. E6-3578 Filed 3-13-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-14-S