        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0615; FRL-9959-08-Region 4]
        Air Plan Approval; TN: Non-interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement in Middle Tennessee

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Tennessee, submitted through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on November 21, 2016. This SIP revision was submitted in support of the State's request that EPA change the federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) requirements for Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties (hereinafter referred to as the “Middle Tennessee Area” or “Area”). Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP submittal revises its maintenance plan for the Middle Tennessee Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and demonstrates that relaxing the federal RVP requirements in this Area would not interfere with the Area's ability to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Specifically, Tennessee's SIP revision concludes that relaxing the federal RVP requirement from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold between June 1 and September 15 of each year in the Area would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or with any other CAA requirement. EPA is proposing to determine that Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision is consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0615 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. 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:

          D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9089 or via electronic mail at akers.brad@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. What is being proposed today?

        This rulemaking proposes to approve Tennessee's noninterference demonstration, submitted on November 21, 2016, in support of the State's request that EPA relax the federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold between June 1 and September 15 of each year (i.e., during high ozone season) in the Area. The State is requesting the removal of the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement. As part of that request, Tennessee has evaluated whether removal of this requirement would interfere with air quality in the Area. To make this demonstration of noninterference, Tennessee completed a technical analysis, including modeling, to estimate the change in emissions that would result from a switch to 9.0 psi RVP fuel. EPA has reviewed this technical analysis and is proposing to find that Tennessee's demonstration supports the conclusion that the use of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi throughout the Middle Tennessee Area will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
        EPA is proposing to approve changes to the existing CAA section 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plan, including updated modeling, that show that the Middle Tennessee Area can continue to maintain the ozone standards without the use of gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi during the high ozone season. More specifically, EPA is proposing to approve that portion of Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision which includes a technical demonstration that changing the federal RVP requirements in this Area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.1

            1 A separate rulemaking is required for relaxation of the current requirement to use gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in the Area. This action proposes EPA's evaluation of the approvability of Tennessee's noninterference demonstration pursuant to section 110(l). The decision regarding removal of Federal RVP requirements pursuant to section 211(h) in the Area includes other considerations evaluated at the discretion of the Administrator. As such, the determination regarding whether to remove the Area from those areas subject to the section 211(h) requirements is made through a separate rulemaking action.

        This preamble is hereinafter organized into five parts. Section II provides the background of the Middle Tennessee Area designation status with respect to the various ozone NAAQS. Section III describes the applicable history of federal gasoline regulation. Section IV provides the Agency's policy regarding relaxation of the volatility standards. Section V provides EPA's analysis of the information submitted by Tennessee to support a change for the conventional gasoline volatility standard in the Middle Tennessee Area.
        II. What is the background for the Middle Tennessee Area?

        The Middle Tennessee Area was originally designated as a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area by EPA on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). The Middle Tennessee Area, then referred to as the Nashville Area, was geographically defined as Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties, Tennessee. On November 6, 1991, by operation of law under section 181(a) of the CAA, EPA classified the Middle Tennessee nonattainment area as a moderate nonattainment area for ozone. See 56 FR 56693. Among the requirements applicable to nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, was the requirement to meet certain volatility standards (known as Reid Vapor Pressure or RVP) for gasoline sold commercially for calendar years 1992 and beyond. See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). As discussed in Section III below, a 7.8 psi federal RVP requirement first applied to the Area during the high ozone season given its status as a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard after the effective date of the November 6, 1991 designation.2

            2 The designations were effective January 6, 1992.

        TDEC originally requested a redesignation of the Middle Tennessee Area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on November 14, 1994. Tennessee updated its request and maintenance plan on August 9, 1995, and January 19, 1996. EPA approved the redesignation and maintenance plan on October 30, 1996, based on 1992-1994 ambient air quality monitoring data showing the Area attaining the NAAQS. See 61 FR 55903. Tennessee's 1-hour ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan did not include a request to relax the 7.8 psi federal RVP standard.

        On April 30, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated at a level of 0.085 parts per million on July 18, 1997. See 69 FR 23857. In this action, the Middle Tennessee Area had a pending designation as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a delayed effective date because the Area was an Early Action Compact (EAC) area. EAC areas developed attainment demonstrations and implemented control measures on an expedited schedule to bring areas into compliance with the NAAQS prior to the effective designations. As such, TDEC submitted an attainment demonstration for the Middle Tennessee Area on December 29, 2004. EPA approved the attainment demonstration for the Area on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50199). Subsequently, the Area showed attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a design value of 0.084 parts per million using quality assured data for the years of 2005-2007. The Area was designated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in a final rulemaking on April 2, 2008, and was therefore never effectively designated as nonattainment for that NAAQS. See 73 FR 17897. Tennessee did not request to relax the 7.8 psi federal RVP standard in relation to the EAC planning or attainment demonstration.
        Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), and consistent with EPA guidance, EAC areas submitted plans to demonstrate continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.3
           As required, these 110(a)(1) maintenance plans provide for continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years from the effective date of these areas' designation as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These plans also include components demonstrating how each area will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and provide contingency measures should an area violate the NAAQS. On August 3, 2010, TDEC submitted a draft 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the Middle Tennessee Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and submitted the final SIP revision on October 13, 2010. EPA approved the maintenance plan on January 28, 2011 (76 FR 5078).

            3 US EPA, Lydia Wegman, May 20, 2005. Memorandum and Guidance Document: Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air Act.

        Tennessee is now requesting that EPA remove the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement for the Middle Tennessee Area, and the State submitted a SIP revision on November 21, 2016, revising its 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including a noninterference demonstration to support its request.4

            4 Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated the Middle Tennessee Area as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088 (April 30, 2012). Although the Middle Tennessee Area is designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement nonetheless remains in place because the State has never requested removal of the more stringent RVP.

        III. What is the history of the gasoline volatility requirement?
        On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline nationwide had become increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory conditions), increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.
        The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under section 211(c) of CAA, EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868), that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the high ozone season. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of commercial gasoline during the summer ozone control season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the State, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the high ozone season).
        The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.

        On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA. The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658). A current listing of the RVP requirements for states can be found on EPA's Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards.

        As explained in the December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, section 107(d)(3) of the Act requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to section 175A of the Act, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years after redesignation. Depending on the area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA will not relax the volatility standard unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates, to the satisfaction of EPA, that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent volatility standard.
        As noted previosly, Tennessee did not request relaxation of the applicable 7.8 psi federal RVP standard when the Middle Tennessee Area was redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Tennessee is therefore now revising its maintenance plan and modeling for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a conservative approach in estimating emissions by using a level of 9.0 psi.
        IV. What are the section 110(l) requirements?
        To support Tennessee's request to relax the federal RVP requirement in the Middle Tennessee Area, the State must demonstrate that the requested change will satisfy section 110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA's criterion for determining the approvability of Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision is whether the noninterference demonstration associated with the relaxation request satisfies section 110(l). The modeling associated with Tennessee's maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is premised upon the 7.8 psi RVP requirements. So the request for a change in the federal RVP requirement is accompanied by a revision to the maintenance plan with updated modeling based on the 9.0 psi RVP. EPA is proposing approval of the revised maintenance plan based on an evaluation of current air quality monitoring data, the information provided in the revised maintenance plan, and the maintenance plan requirements in the CAA.

        EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on any particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed SIP revision. EPA's analysis of Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision pursuant to section 110(l) is provided below.
        EPA notes that in this action, it is only proposing to approve the State's technical demonstration that the Area can continue to attain and maintain the NAAQS and meet other CAA requirements after switching to the sale of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi in the Middle Tennessee Area during the high ozone season and to amend the SIP to include this demonstration and revise the maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Consistent with CAA section 211(h) and the Phase II volatility regulations, EPA will initiate a separate rulemaking to relax the current federal requirement to use gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in the Middle Tennessee Area.
        V. What is EPA's analysis of Tennessee's submittal?
        a. Overall Preliminary Conclusions Regarding Tennessee's Non-Interference Analyses
        On November 21, 2016, TDEC submitted a SIP revision making changes to the 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the Middle Tennessee Area, including a noninterference demonstration to support the State's request to modify the RVP summertime gasoline requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for the Area. This demonstration includes an evaluation of the impact that the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement would have on maintenance of the ozone standards and on the maintenance of the other NAAQS.5
           Tennessee focused its analysis on the impact of the change in RVP to attainment and maintenance of the ozone, PM,6
           and NO2 NAAQS because RVP requirements do not affect lead, sulfur dioxide (SO2), or carbon monoxide (CO) emissions; because VOC and NOX emissions are precursors for ozone and PM; and because NO2 is a component of NOX.

            5 The six NAAQS for which EPA establishes health and welfare based standards are CO, lead, NO2, ozone, PM, and SO2.

            6 PM is composed of PM2.5 and PM10.

        TDEC's noninterference analysis utilized EPA's 2014 Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2014a) emission modeling system to estimate emissions for mobile sources.7

           These mobile source emissions are used as part of the evaluation of the potential impacts to the NAAQS that might result exclusively from changing the high ozone season RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. As summarized in Tables 1 and 2, below, the MOVES model predicted minor increases in mobile source NOX and VOC emissions from the switch to 9.0 psi RVP fuel. Daily on-road mobile NOX emissions are projected to increase by 0.09 tpd in 2018 during the ozone season, while daily on-road mobile VOC emissions are projected to increase by 0.05 tpd (approximately 0.3 percent for both pollutants).

            7 The MOVES2014a model was the latest EPA mobile source model available to the State at the time that it developed its SIP revision. TDEC's modeling using MOVES2014a conforms with EPA's modeling guidance.

          Table 1—On-road Mobile Source Ozone Season NOX Emissions (Aveage Tons/Day) in Middle Tennessee

            County
            7.8 psi RVP
            2007
            2010
            2014
            2018
            9.0 psi RVP
            2018

            Davidson
            40.50
            33.80
            24.86
            15.88
            15.92

            Rutherford
            20.40
            17.10
            12.70
            8.28
            8.30

            Sumner
            9.20
            7.50
            5.22
            2.94
            2.95

            Williamson
            13.50
            11.06
            7.82
            4.56
            4.57

            Wilson
            13.80
            11.31
            8.00
            4.67
            4.68

            Total
            97.40
            80.77
            58.59
            36.33
            36.42

          Table 2—On-road Mobile Source Ozone Season VOC Emissions (Average Tons/Day) in Middle Tennessee

            County
            7.8 psi RVP
            2007
            2010
            2014
            2018
            9.0 psi RVP
            2018

            Davidson
            17.10
            14.69
            11.47
            8.25
            8.26

            Rutherford
            5.60
            5.10
            4.44
            3.75
            3.77

            Sumner
            3.30
            2.93
            2.45
            1.95
            1.96

            Williamson
            4.50
            3.93
            3.17
            2.41
            2.41

            Wilson
            3.30
            2.95
            2.47
            1.99
            2.00

            Total
            33.80
            29.60
            24.00
            18.35
            18.40

        TDEC's analysis in the November 21, 2016, submittal shows that RVP relaxation could increase total anthropogenic VOC emissions by 0.8 percent and increase total anthropogenic NOX emissions by 0.1 percent in 2018. Table 3, below, shows the total estimated anthropogenic emissions of NOX and VOC from area, point, on-road, nonroad and aircraft, locomotive, and commercial marine source categories for the Middle Tennessee Area.8

           Emissions reported for 2018 in the Table assume the use of 9.0 psi RVP fuel whereas emissions from 2007 through 2014 assume the use of 7.8 psi RVP fuel. The 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan Guidance indicates that the principal mechanism for demonstrating continued attainment is a projected future inventory. NOX and VOC emissions are projected to continue to decrease in the Middle Tennessee Area even with the use of 9.0 psi RVP fuel in the entire Area. NOX emissions are expected to decrease by 46% from 2007 to 2018 for the Middle Tennessee Area. Similarly, VOC emissions are expected to decrease by 26% over the same timeframe. Therefore, emissions resulting in the change in RVP are not expected to cause the area to be out of compliance with any NAAQS.

            8 To see more details about emissions inventory development, see Appendices A-D of the November 21, 2016, SIP submittal.

          Table 3—Total Anthropogenic Ozone Season Emissions of NOX and VOC (Average Tons/Day) for Middle Tennessee

            Year
            NOX

            VOC

            2007 (7.8 psi RVP)
            164.25
            126.18

            2010 (7.8 psi RVP)
            141.48
            119.18

            2014 (7.8 psi RVP)
            115.90
            93.30

            2018 (9.0 psi RVP)
            89.17
            92.91

            Difference from 2007 to 2018
            −75.08
            −33.27

        b. Noninterference Analysis for the Ozone NAAQS
        As described above, the Middle Tennessee Area was redesignated to attainment for purposes of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This redesignation was based upon a Tennessee redesignation request for the Area which included the required 1-hour ozone monitoring data and maintenance plan ensuring the Area would remain in attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for at least a period of 10 years (consistent with CAA 175A(a)). The maintenance plan requirements remained in place for the counties when they were subsequently designated unclassifiable/attainment on April 30, 2004, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858) effective June 15, 2004. However, because this 1997 8-hour ozone unclassifiable/attainment area had an existing maintenance plan pursuant to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, it was required to submit a 10-year 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As required, 110(a)(1) maintenance plans provide for continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years from the effective date of areas' designation as unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As a previous 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Middle Tennessee Area was already subject to the federal RVP requirements for high ozone season gasoline. Although originally implemented for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, these Federal RVP requirements continued to apply to the Middle Tennessee Area per the 110(a)(1) maintenance plan required to show continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
        The Middle Tennessee Area is continuing to meet the 1-hour NAAQS, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,9

           and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on recent air quality monitoring data. The 2008 ozone NAAQS is met when the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years is 0.075 parts per million (ppm) or less. Similarly, the 2015 ozone NAAQS, promulgated October 1, 2015, as published in a final rule on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65292), is met when the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years is 0.070 ppm or less. The trend in design values (DV) for ozone for the Middle Tennessee Area is shown in Table 4, with the current DV in the Area being 0.067 ppm in 2015, below the 2015 standard. EPA also evaluated the potential increase in the VOC and NOX precursor emissions, and whether it is reasonable to conclude that the requested change to RVP requirements in the Areas during the high ozone season would cause the Middle Tennessee Area to be out of compliance with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

            9 The air quality design value for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration. The level of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.075 ppm. The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is not met when the design value is greater than 0.075 ppm.

          Table 4—Middle Tennessee Area Ozone Design Value Trends

            Years
            Design value (ppm)

            2005-2007
            0.084

            2006-2008
            0.084

            2007-2009
            0.078

            2008-2010
            0.076

            2009-2011
            0.075

            2010-2012
            0.079

            2011-2013
            0.076

            2012-2014
            0.072

            2013-2015
            0.067

        Table 4 also shows that there is an overall downward trend in ozone concentrations in the Middle Tennessee Area. This decline can be attributed to federal and state programs that have led to significant emissions reductions in ozone precursors, such as federal standards in onroad and nonroad mobile source sectors and resultant fleet turnover. Given this downward trend, the downward trend in precursor emissions, the current ozone concentrations in the Middle Tennessee Area, and the results of Tennessee's emissions analysis, EPA is proposing to determine that a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for the affected counties would not interfere with the Area's ability to attain or maintain the ozone NAAQS in the Area. There has been no formal determination at this point for whether the Middle Tennessee Area is attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS.10
           However, for the reasons noted above, EPA is proposing to determine that changing the RVP to 9.0 psi for the Middle Tennessee Area will not significantly impact the Area's ability to attain or maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

            10 EPA will designate areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on 2013-2015 data by October 1, 2017. The deadline for states to submit recommendations for initial designations with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS was October 1, 2016. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).

        c. Noninterference Analysis for the PM NAAQS

        Over the course of several years, EPA has reviewed and revised the PM2.5 NAAQS a number of times. On July 16, 1997, EPA established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 μg/m3, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. See 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997). On September 21, 2006, EPA retained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 μg/m3 but revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 μg/m3, based again on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). On December 14, 2012, EPA retained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 μg/m3 but revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 μg/m3, based again on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
        The main precursor pollutants for PM2.5 are NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia. As mentioned earlier in this rulemaking, the federal RVP requirements only result in emissions benefits for VOC and NOX. Therefore, Tennessee focused on these two PM2.5 precursors in its analysis of the potential impact of changing the RVP requirements for the Middle Tennessee Area on the PM2.5 NAAQS. Tennessee asserted in its 110(l) demonstration that relaxing the RVP standard will have little impact on these precursor emissions in relation to PM formation and is not expected to negatively impact attainment or maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS. Moreover, there have been a number of studies which have indicated that SO2 is the primary driver of PM2.5 formation in the Southeast.11

            11 See, e.g., Journal of Environmental Engineering—Quantifying the sources of ozone, fine particulate matter, and regional haze in the Southeastern United States (June 24, 2009), http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journalofenvironmental-management.

        Given the downward trend in precursor emissions noted above and the small increases in those emissions with a relaxation of the RVP standard (less than 0.1 tpd for each pollutant), and given that RVP will not affect the most significant PM2.5 precursor (SO2), EPA is proposing to determine that a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for the affected counties would not interfere with the Area's ability to attain or maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area.
        d. Noninterference Analysis for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS

        On February 17, 2012, EPA designated all counties in Tennessee as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR 9532. Based on the technical analysis in Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision, the projected increase in total anthropogenic NOX emissions associated with the change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for the Middle Tennessee Area is approximately 0.09 tpd in 2018. Given the current unclassifiable/attainment designation and the results of Tennessee's emissions and modeling analysis, EPA is proposing to determine that a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for the Middle Tennessee Area would not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the Area.
        VI. Proposed Action
        EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision consisting of a revision to its 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Middle Tennessee Area and the technical noninterference demonstration supporting the State's request to relax the RVP standard to 9.0 psi in the Area. Specifically, EPA is proposing to accept updated emissions inventory and projections associated with the mobile source modeling used in the State's noninterference demonstration related to RVP. EPA is also proposing to find that this change in the RVP requirements for the Middle Tennessee Area will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.
        EPA is proposing that Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision, including the technical demonstration associated with the State's request for the removal of the federal RVP requirements, and the updated attainment inventory and emissions projections, are consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA. Should EPA decide to remove the counties of the Middle Tennessee Area from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi federal RVP requirements, such action will occur in a separate, subsequent rulemaking.
        VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

        • does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
        • does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

          Authority:
           42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

          Dated: January 20, 2017.
          V. Anne Heard,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 2017-03579 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 01-1540, MM Docket No. 01-142, RM-10144]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Comfort, TX

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          This document requests comments on a petition filed by Charles Crawford requesting the allotment of Channel 291A at Comfort, Texas. The coordinates for Channel 291A at Comfort are 29-58-06 and 98-54-54. Mexican concurrence will be requested for the allotment of Channel 291A at Comfort.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before August 20, 2001, and reply comments on or before September 4, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, DC. 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioners, as follows: Charles Crawford, 4553 Bordeaux Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75205; Katherine Pyeatt, 6655 Aintree Circle, Dallas, Texas 75214.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 01-142, adopted June 20, 2001, and released June 29, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC. 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805.
        Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.

        Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex parte contact.
        For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Radio broadcasting.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CRF part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
          1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

            Authority:
            47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, 334 and 336.

            § 73.202
            [Amended]
            2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is amended by adding Channel 291A at Comfort.

            Federal Communications Commission.
            John A. Karousos,
            Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 01-17198 Filed 7-9-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-U


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 120306154-2152-01]
        RIN 0648-XA920
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2012 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Specifications

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes 2012 quota specifications for the Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) fishery. This action is necessary to implement binding recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

          DATES:

          Written comments must be received on or before April 16, 2012. Dates and locations for public hearings on this proposed action will be specified in a separate document in the Federal Register to be published at a later date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0048”, by any one of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0048” in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.
          • Fax: 978-281-9340, Attn: Sarah McLaughlin
          • Mail: Sarah McLaughlin, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930
          • Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          Supporting documents, including the 2011 Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review, and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as well as others, such as the Fishery Management Plans described below may be downloaded from the HMS Web site at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. These documents also are available by sending your request to Sarah McLaughlin at the mailing address specified above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Atlantic bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore tuna, yellowfin tuna, and skipjack tuna (hereafter referred to as “Atlantic tunas”) are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. As an active member of ICCAT, the United States implements binding ICCAT recommendations to comply with this international treaty. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate, to implement ICCAT recommendations. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.
        Background
        On May 28, 1999, NMFS published in the Federal Register (64 FR 29090) final regulations, effective July 1, 1999, implementing the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 FMP). The 1999 FMP included a framework process to promulgate annual specifications for the BFT fishery, in accordance with ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and to implement the annual recommendations of ICCAT. Since 1982, ICCAT has recommended a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of BFT, and since 1991, ICCAT has recommended specific limits (quotas) for the United States and other Contracting Parties with BFT fisheries.
        On October 2, 2006, NMFS published in the Federal Register (71 FR 58058) a final rule, effective November 1, 2006, implementing the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (Consolidated HMS FMP), which consolidated management of all Atlantic HMS (i.e., sharks, swordfish, tunas, and billfish) into one comprehensive FMP. The implementing regulations for Atlantic HMS are at 50 CFR part 635. Among other things, the Consolidated HMS FMP maintained an allocation scheme, established in the 1999 FMP, for dividing the baseline annual U.S. BFT quota among several domestic quota categories based on gear type (i.e., Harpoon, Purse Seine, Angling, General, Longline, and Trap categories).
        The 2012 BFT quota specifications are necessary to adjust the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota, recommended for 2011 and for 2012 by ICCAT, to account for any underharvest or overharvest of the adjusted 2011 U.S. BFT quota. Preliminary information indicates an underharvest of the 2011 adjusted BFT quota. Final 2011 landings and dead discard information will be available in May 2012.
        2010 ICCAT Recommendation and 2011 Implementing Rule
        At its 2010 annual meeting, ICCAT recommended a TAC of 1,750 mt annually for 2011 and for 2012, inclusive of dead discards (ICCAT Recommendation 10-03—Supplemental Recommendation by ICCAT concerning the Western Atlantic BFT Rebuilding Program). This amount is expected to allow for continued stock growth under the both the low and high stock recruitment scenarios developed by ICCAT's scientific body at the last BFT stock assessment. The U.S. share of the TAC, adjusted for two specific bycatch allocations, is 54.02 percent, resulting in a baseline quota of 923.7 mt. The annual total U.S. quota, including 25 mt to account for bycatch related to pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED), is 948.7 mt. Currently, ICCAT limits the amount of underharvest that may be carried forward from one year to the next to no more than 10 percent of a country's quota. This limits the amount of 2011 U.S. underharvest that may be carried forward to 94.9 mt (10 percent of the 948.7-mt total U.S. quota).
        Through a final rule implementing the BFT quotas and Atlantic tuna fisheries management measures (76 FR 39019, July 5, 2011), NMFS modified the baseline quota to 948.7 mt to implement ICCAT Recommendation 10-03 and set the domestic BFT fishing category subquotas per the allocation scheme established in the Consolidated HMS FMP and as permitted in implementing regulations (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006). The baseline quota and category subquotas are codified and will be effective until changed; for instance, as a result of any new ICCAT BFT TAC recommendation. However, consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS will make underharvest and overharvest adjustments as necessary for the 2012 fishing year. Until the final specifications are effective, the existing BFT base quotas continue to apply as codified. See Table 1, second column.
        Accounting for Dead Discards
        The United States must report BFT landings data and BFT dead discard estimates to ICCAT annually. Currently, the best available annual estimate of dead discards for 2011 and that can be expected for 2012 is the 2010 estimate of 122.3 mt. Only pelagic longline dead discard estimates are available at this time. Estimates from other BFT gear types and fishing sectors that are not observed at sufficient levels for estimation and that do not report via a logbook are not included in this calculation. However, bycatch and bycatch mortality of BFT by vessels using handgear and purse seine gear is considered to be relatively low. Using the 2010 estimate as a proxy for estimated 2012 dead discards for the proposed action is appropriate because it is the best available and most complete information NMFS currently has regarding dead discards and is the established protocol in the regulations. When the 2011 BFT dead discard estimate becomes available (late spring 2012), it will be used to prepare the final specifications and will be reported to ICCAT along with total 2011 BFT landings.
        2012 Quota Specifications
        The 2012 BFT quota specifications are necessary to adjust the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota, which was recommended by ICCAT for 2011 and for 2012, to account for underharvest or overharvest of the adjusted 2011 U.S. BFT quota. Based on preliminary data available as of January 18, 2012, landings for 2011 totaled 746.3 mt. Adding the 122.3-mt estimate of dead discards results in a preliminary 2011 total catch of 868.6 mt, which is 175 mt less than the amount of quota (inclusive of dead discards) allowed under ICCAT Recommendation 10-03 (948.7 mt plus 94.9 mt of 2010 underharvest carried forward to 2011, totaling 1,043.6 mt). However, the current ICCAT recommendation limits the amount of underharvest the United States may carry forward to 2012 to 94.9 mt, 10 percent of the total U.S. quota.
        NMFS proposes to account up front (i.e., at the beginning of the fishing year) for half of the expected dead discards for 2012, using the best available estimate of dead discards, and deducting that portion directly from the Longline category subquota. This is the same approach that NMFS took for the final 2011 BFT quota specifications. Accounting for dead discards in the Longline category in this way may provide further incentive for pelagic longline fishermen to reduce those interactions that may result in dead discards. NMFS would apply half of the amount of underharvest that is allowed to be carried forward to 2012 to the Longline category and maintain the other half in the Reserve category. Maintaining this portion of the underharvest in the Reserve category until later in the fishing year would provide maximum flexibility in accounting for 2012 landings and dead discards. Consistent with determination criteria at § 635.27(a)(8), NMFS may allocate any portion of the Reserve category quota for inseason or annual adjustments to any other quota category.
        Specifically, NMFS would deduct half of the dead discard estimate of 122.3 mt (i.e., 61.2 mt) from the 2012 baseline Longline category subquota of 74.8 mt and apply half of the 94.9 mt allowed to be carried forward to 2012 to the Longline category, i.e., 74.8 − 61.2 + 47.5 = 61.1 mt adjusted Longline subquota (not including the 25-mt allocation set aside by ICCAT for the NED). NMFS would add the remainder of the 2011 underharvest that can be carried forward to 2012 (47.4 mt) to the Reserve category's baseline allocation of 23.1 mt, for an adjusted Reserve category quota of 70.5 mt.
        For the directed fishing categories (i.e., the Angling, General, Harpoon, Purse Seine categories) as well as the Trap category, NMFS is not proposing adjustments to the baseline BFT subquotas (i.e., the allocations that result from applying the scheme established in the Consolidated HMS FMP to the baseline U.S. BFT quota).

        Thus, in accordance with the ICCAT Recommendation 10-03, the Consolidated HMS FMP allocation scheme for the domestic categories, and regulations regarding annual adjustments at § 635.27(a)(10), NMFS proposes quota specifications for the 2012 fishing year as follows and as shown in Table 1: General category—435.1 mt; Harpoon category—36 mt; Purse Seine category—171.8 mt; Angling category—182 mt; Longline category—61.1 mt; and Trap category—0.9 mt. The amount allocated to the Reserve category for inseason adjustments, scientific research collection, potential overharvest in any category except the Purse Seine category, and potential quota transfers would be 70.3 mt.
        NMFS will make any necessary adjustments to the 2012 specifications in the final rule after considering updated 2011 landings information and the final dead discard estimate for 2011. It is important to note that NMFS and ICCAT have separate schedules and approaches for accounting for U.S. landings and dead discards. Through the specifications process used in 2011 (and proposed here), NMFS accounted proactively for half of the best estimate of dead discards at the beginning of the fishing year, and indicated that total 2011 U.S. BFT landings and dead discards would be accounted for and reported to ICCAT, and NMFS would make any ICCAT-required adjustments to future U.S. BFT quotas, if necessary. In contrast, ICCAT assesses quota compliance at its annual meeting in November by comparing the prior year's landings and reported dead discards against the adjusted U.S. quota. At the 2012 ICCAT annual meeting, ICCAT will compare actual 2011 landings and dead discards against the 948.7-mt base quota for 2011, plus the 94.9 mt allowed to be carried forward from 2010 to 2011 (for a total 2011 adjusted U.S. quota of 1,043.6 mt), to determine the United States' compliance with ICCAT.
        If the final 2011 landings and dead discards information results in a total of greater than 948.7 mt (e.g., if the final dead discards estimate increases by more than 80.1 mt) but less than 1,043.6 mt, then the amount of 2011 underharvest that the United States may carry forward to 2012 would need to be reduced from 94.9 mt accordingly. In such an event, NMFS could decide to provide half of the available amount carried forward to the Longline category and the other half to the Reserve category (e.g., if the 2011 landings and the final dead discard estimate total 963.6 mt, 80 mt would be available to carry forward and NMFS could provide 40 mt to the Longline category and 40 mt to the Reserve category). NMFS could also decide to provide the entire amount to the Longline or Reserve category, particularly if the amount is small, such as 20 mt, or could allocate the amount carried forward in another manner after considering domestic management needs for 2012. In these examples, the baseline subquotas for the directed fishing categories and Trap category would be maintained (i.e., not changed). NMFS invites public comment on the range of possible allocations of the amount carried forward should that amount be greater than 0 mt and less than 94.9 mt.
        Conversely, if the complete 2011 landings information and the final dead discard estimate for 2011 total more than the adjusted 2011 U.S. BFT quota of 1,043.6 mt, NMFS may need to take further action, consistent with the BFT quota adjustment regulations and with ICCAT Recommendation 10-03. Also, the United States may be subject to adjustment of the U.S. BFT quota, consistent with ICCAT recommendations. Given the amount of dead discards the United States has reported to ICCAT in the last few years (ranging from 122 to 204 mt), NMFS considers this potential situation to be unlikely, as the dead discard estimate would need to be approximately 300 mt. However, NMFS requests public comment on the potential adjustment of the final 2012 quota and subquotas to account for potential overharvest of the 2011 adjusted U.S. quota. For example, NMFS may determine that reducing either the Longline and/or the Reserve category quotas is necessary, or that the overall 2012 BFT quota must be reduced, which would affect all category subquotas.
        The adjusted Longline category subquota for 2012 would be further subdivided in accordance with the North/South allocation percentages (i.e., no more than 60 percent to the south of 31° N. latitude) in the Consolidated HMS FMP. Thus, the proposed Longline category subquota of 61.1 mt would be subdivided as follows: 24.4 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT north of 31° N. latitude, and 36.7 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT south of 31° N. latitude. NMFS would account for landings under the 25-mt NED allocation separately from other Longline category landings.
        NMFS considers this a transitional approach from the method used for 2007 through 2010. From 2007 through 2010, there were substantial underharvests of some of the commercial BFT subquotas. Consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP and its implementing regulations, NMFS provided the Longline category a substantial portion of prior year U.S. underharvest that was allowed to be carried forward (limited to 50 percent of the total U.S. quota at that time) during the annual specification process at the beginning of the fishing year. This provided quota sufficient for the pelagic longline fleet to operate for the entire fishing year while also accounting for dead discards “up front” using the best available estimate of anticipated dead discards. NMFS was also able to increase the directed categories' quotas and the Reserve category quota using available underharvest.

        This new method is appropriate again for 2012 as NMFS plans to begin an HMS FMP amendment process to determine whether existing management measures need to be adjusted more broadly to meet the multiple goals for the BFT fishery in the future. In the meantime, management of the BFT fishery continues under the current Consolidated HMS FMP, implementing regulations, and ICCAT Recommendations. Through the FMP amendment process, NMFS may begin to expand BFT data collection programs, including collection of dead discard information, for all categories and may revise measures to account for and control dead discards. In contemplating how to account for dead discards within the U.S. BFT quota, NMFS believes that the operational issues facing the pelagic longline fishery and implications regarding BFT dead discards that may occur while the fleet continues directed fishing operations for swordfish and other tunas should be considered. NMFS anticipates that dead discards in the pelagic longline fishery may be reduced due to continued implementation of the weak hook requirement in the Gulf of Mexico in 2011 (76 FR 18653, April 5, 2011).

          Table 1—Proposed 2012 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quotas and Quota Specifications
          [in metric tons]

            Category (% share of baseline quota)

            Baseline allocation for 2011 and 2012 (per 2010 ICCAT recommendation and consolidated HMS FMP allocations)
            2011 Quota specifications
            Dead discard deduction (1/2 of 2011 proxy of 122.3 mt)
            2011 Underharvest to carry forward to 2012 (94.9 mt total)
            Adjusted 2012 fishing year quota

            Total (100)
            923.7*

            957.4

            Angling (19.7)
            182.0

            182.0

              SUBQUOTAS:

              SUBQUOTAS:

            School 94.9

            School 94.9

            Reserve 17.6

            Reserve 17.6

            North 36.5

            North 36.5

            South 40.8

            South 40.8

            LS/SM 82.9

            LS/SM 82.9

            North 39.1

            North 39.1

            South 43.8

            South 43.8

            Trophy 4.2

            Trophy 4.2

            North 1.4

            North 1.4

            South 2.8

            South 2.8

            General (47.1)
            435.1

            435.1

              SUBQUOTAS:

              SUBQUOTAS:

            Jan 23.1

            Jan 23.1

            Jun-Aug 217.6

            Jun-Aug 217.6

            Sept 115.3

            Sept 115.3

            Oct-Nov 56.6

            Oct-Nov 56.6

            Dec 22.6

            Dec 22.6

            Harpoon (3.9)
            36.0

            36.0

            Purse Seine (18.6)
            171.8

            171.8

            Longline (8.1)
            74.8
            −61.2
            +47.5
            61.1

              SUBQUOTAS:

              SUBQUOTAS:

            North (-NED) 29.9

            North (-NED) 24.4

            NED 25.0 *

            NED 25.0 *

            South 44.9

            South 36.7

            Trap (0.1)
            0.9

            0.9

            Reserve (2.5)
            23.1

            +47.4
            70.5

          * 25-mt ICCAT set-aside to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the NED. Not included in totals at top of table.

        Request for Comments

        NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule through April 16, 2012. See instructions in ADDRESSES section above.
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule is exempt from the procedures of E.O. 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the Chief Council for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The reasoning for this certification is as follows:
        These annual quota Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) specifications (effective January 1 through December 31, 2012) are necessary to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Under ATCA, the United States must promulgate regulations as necessary and appropriate to implement binding recommendations of ICCAT.

        The proposed rule would adjust the annual U.S. baseline BFT quota, which was recommended for 2011 and for 2012 by ICCAT, to account for any underharvest or overharvest of the adjusted 2011 U.S. BFT quota. Preliminary information indicates an underharvest of the 2011 adjusted BFT quota. This proposed action was developed in accordance with the framework process set forth in the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (Consolidated HMS FMP), and is supported by the Environmental Impact Statement/Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared for the Consolidated HMS FMP and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared for the 2011 final rule implementing BFT quotas and Atlantic tuna fisheries management measures (see ADDRESSES).

        On July 5, 2011, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a final rule (76 FR 39019) that modified the baseline quota to 948.7 mt to implement ICCAT Recommendation 10-03 (Supplemental Recommendation by ICCAT concerning the Western Atlantic BFT Rebuilding Program) and set the category subquotas per the allocations established in the Consolidated HMS FMP (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006). The FRFA prepared for the 2011 BFT quota specifications indicated that there were 8,311 commercial Atlantic tunas or Atlantic HMS permit holders (3,849 in the Atlantic Tunas General category; 29 in the Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category; 5 in the Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category; 248 in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category; 6 in the Atlantic Tunas Trap category; and 4,174 in the HMS Charter/Headboat category). This constitutes the best available information regarding the universe of permit holders recently analyzed.
        Under the SBA's regulations implementing the RFA, a small fishing entity is one that has less than $4 million in annual revenue ($6.5 million for charter/party boats). This action would apply to all participants in the Atlantic BFT fishery, all of which are considered small entities.

        The most recent ex-vessel average price per pound information for each commercial quota is used to estimate potential ex-vessel gross revenues under the 2012 baseline subquotas and the 2012 proposed adjusted subquotas, which would reduce the Longline category subquota in the same manner as implemented for 2011 (i.e., 2011 prices for the General, Harpoon, and Longline/Trap categories, and 2009 for the Purse Seine category, when Purse Seine category landing were last recorded). The 2012 baseline quotas could result in estimated gross revenues for each category, if fully utilized, as follows: General category: $8.5 million (435.1 mt * $8.90/lb); Harpoon category: $565,000 (36 mt * $7.12/lb); Longline category: $1 million (74.8 mt * $6.10/lb); Purse Seine category: $2.3 million (171.8 mt * $5.96/lb); and Trap category: $12,000 (0.9 mt * $6.10/lb). Under the adjusted quota for the Longline category, gross revenues could be $822,000 (61.1 mt * $6.10/lb). Estimated potential 2012 revenues on a per vessel basis, considering the number of permit holders listed above, could be $2,200 for the General category; $19,500 for the Harpoon category; $3,300 for the Longline category under the proposed adjusted subquota (reduced from $4,100 under the baseline subquota); $451,000 for the Purse Seine category; and $2,000 for the Trap category. Thus, all of the entities affected by this rule are considered to be small entities for the purposes of the RFA.
        However, this proposed rule would not change the BFT baseline quota and category subquotas, or implement any new management measures not previously considered. ICCAT Recommendation 10-03 is in effect until changed, for instance, as a result of a new ICCAT BFT quota recommendation. The domestic BFT baseline quotas and subquotas are codified in the regulations. Thus, the affected entities will not experience any negative price impacts as a result of this rule.

          Carryover of underharvest: ICCAT Recommendation 10-03 limits the amount of underharvest that may be carried forward from one year to the next to no more than 10 percent of a country's quota. This limits the amount of 2011 U.S. underharvest that may be carried forward to 94.9 mt (10 percent of the 948.7-mt total U.S. quota). NMFS proposes to carry 94.9 mt forward to 2012 and distribute that amount in the same manner as specified for 2011. The adjusted BFT quota and subquotas for the 2012 fishing year would be the same as for the 2011 fishing year based on the best available data regarding 2011 landings and the best available estimate of dead discards, which must be accounted for and reported to ICCAT. The annual specification process that this proposed rule follows, including application of underharvests and overharvests, is described in detail in Chapters 2 and 4 of the Consolidated HMS FMP. Because the economic impacts of the carryover of underharvest, to the extent that there are any, are expected to be generally positive, this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Because this rule does not change the catch limits significantly, and will not have an economic impact (except a positive one) on the affected entities, it does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, no initial regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. and 1801 et seq.

          Dated: March 13, 2012.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-6453 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0002; FRL-9927-05-Region 2]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan National Priorities List: Deletion of the Crown Vantage Landfill Superfund Site

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of intent.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Crown Vantage Landfill Superfund Site (Site), located in Alexandria Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey, 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). EPA and the State of New Jersey, through the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than long-term maintenance and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by May 29, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0002, by one of the following methods:
          • Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email: hess.alison@epa.gov:

          • Mail: To the attention of Alison Hess, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Emergency & Remedial Response Division, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866.
          • Hand Delivery: Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10007-1866 (telephone: 212-637-4308). Such deliveries are only accepted during the Record Center's normal hours of operation (Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0002. 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 comments and with any disk or CD-ROM that 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 comments. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption and should 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:

          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, Room 1828, New York, NY 10007-1866, Telephone: 212-637-4308, Hours: Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and

          Milford Public Library, Crown Vantage Landfill Site Repository File, 40 Frenchtown Road, Milford, NJ 08848, Telephone: 908 995-4072, Hours: Monday 12:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Tuesday 11 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Wednesday 12 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Thursday 11 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Friday 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., and Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Alison Hess, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 19th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866; Telephone 212-637-3959; or Email hess.alison@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Table of Contents

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

        I. Introduction
        EPA Region 2 is announcing its intent to delete the Crown Vantage Landfill Superfund Site from the NPL and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the NCP, which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the CERCLA of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

        EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Crown Vantage Landfill Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.
        II. NPL Deletion Criteria
        The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
        i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
        ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
        iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
        Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.
        III. Deletion Procedures
        The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
        (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of Intent to Delete;
        (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today;
        (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate;
        (4) The State of New Jersey, through the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), has concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL;

        (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major local newspaper, the Hunterdon County Democrat. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.
        (6) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

        If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the Site information repositories listed above.

        Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

        IV. Basis for Site Deletion
        The following summary provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:
        Site Background and History
        The Crown Vantage Landfill Site is an inactive former landfill located at 500 Milford-Frenchtown Road in Alexandria Township, New Jersey. The Site occupies about 10 acres and has approximately 1,500 feet of frontage on the eastern bank of the Delaware River. A mix of young and mature hardwood trees, shrubs and grasses covers the Site. Access to the landfill area is restricted by locked chain-link fencing.
        To the west of the site, across the Delaware River, lies Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The Delaware and Raritan Canal foot path and a farm field bound the Site to the east. Historically, railroad tracks bounded the Site to the east. The landfill property is bounded to the south by the Delaware Raritan Canal State Park and to the north by the Curtis Specialty Papers Superfund site.
        The landfill reportedly was utilized by the nearby former Curtis Specialty Papers mill, as well as by other nearby Riegel Paper Company facilities, for the disposal of waste beginning in the late 1930s through the early 1970s. The landfill may also have accepted flood-damaged items from the local community following record flooding of the Delaware River in 1955. Types of wastes disposed of at the landfill include fly ash, cinders, and bottom ash; paper mill and coating-related wastes, including foil-backed paper, off-specification paper, 55-gallon drums containing press room wastes, and paper fiber sludge from wastewater treatment plant operations; steel and fiber barrels and pallets; and construction and demolition debris. Historical aerial photos indicated that shallow trenches in the surface of the landfill may have been used for the burial of drummed wastes in the early 1970s.
        Site characterization began in 1991 with the Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI), including an aerial photograph analysis, geophysical survey of the landfill area, soil gas sampling, ground water sampling and a wetlands assessment. The PSI was followed by the removal of drums (empty, full, and partially full) and paper products from the surface of the landfill. In 1994, monitoring wells were installed and the ground water quality was characterized.
        From 2001 through 2003, the NJDEP fenced the Site, removed additional surface debris, including drums, and collected surface soil samples. The EPA conducted additional sampling of surface water, sediment, surface soil and fly ash, and ground water in 2003 and 2004. Additional wastes were removed from the surface and riprap was placed in flood-impacted areas.
        The Site was proposed to the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 2004 (69 FR 56970) and listed on the NPL in April 2005 (70 FR 21644). The EPA CERCLIS ID# is NJN000204492.
        In May 2005, Fort James Operating Company, a subsidiary of Georgia-Pacific, entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with EPA for a Removal Action. Under the 2005 AOC, additional surficial drums were removed, additional fencing was provided, and an engineered slope stabilization wall was constructed to stabilize the landfill's western face. In total, over 700 surficial drums, drum remnants and drum carcasses were removed from the surface of the Site during investigations conducted between 1991 and 2007.
        Further investigations and removal actions at the Site were performed by Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP (GP) under an Administrative Agreement and Order on Consent signed in September 2007 and by International Paper Company (IP) under a Unilateral Administrative Order signed in December 2007. During the Remedial Investigation (RI) conducted in 2008-2009, more than 1,750 drums, drum carcasses and drum remnants were removed from the Site. Analytical data from surface water, pore water and groundwater sampling showed that these media were not impacted by the Site. The RI Report was completed in July 2010. The RI concluded that, after removal activities were conducted, all human health risks were within or below EPA's acceptable levels. An ecological risk assessment was also conducted and concluded that there was no need for remediation based on potential risks to ecological receptors. The Feasibility Study Report, developed to identify and compare cleanup alternatives, was completed in November 2010.
        Selected Remedy
        The Site remedy was selected and memorialized in the Site Record of Decision (ROD), which was issued on September 29, 2011. Because the baseline human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessments for the Site did not identify the presence of unacceptable human health or ecological risks requiring remediation under current and reasonably anticipated future Site use, the remedial action objectives were limited to preventing exposures to landfill materials. The major components of the selected remedy of the ROD are the following:
        • Establishment of a deed restriction to ensure that future Site uses do not result in the disturbance of the surface of the Site, thereby preventing future residential or commercial/industrial development of the Site;
        • Continued maintenance of security measures at the Site (e.g., signage and fencing);
        • Continued maintenance of the slope stabilization wall;
        • Sealing of remaining shallow monitoring wells;
        • Semi-annual monitoring of the Site, including the slope stabilization wall; and
        • Five-Year Reviews by EPA to ensure that the remedy continues to be protective of public health and the environment.
        Response Actions
        A Consent Decree for IP's and GP's performance of the Remedial Design and Remedial Action was entered by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in April 2013.

        The remedy was designed and constructed in a single phase pursuant to EPA-approved work plans. The monitoring well closures and fence relocation measures undertaken as part of maintaining the existing security as required by the ROD were conducted from February to April 2013. Three monitoring wells and two piezometers were located in the field and sealed in accordance with New Jersey well closure regulations. Another three monitoring wells and four piezometers were documented to have been closed in 2007. Lastly, two monitoring wells could not be located visually or with the use of a metal detector and may have been closed in 2007 or covered by silt and other materials since they were last sampled in 1994, and four piezometers located beneath the slope stabilization wall also could not be located and are presumed to no longer be accessible. New 12-foot fence posts were driven to a depth of four feet. Monitoring of ambient air was conducted during fence installation, with no measurable concentrations of volatile organic compounds detected above background levels. Old posts and fencing were removed and recycled, and a new section of fencing and fabric installed. New coated, rust-free aluminum signs were posted along the entire fence perimeter as needed. EPA conducted a final inspection in July 2013 and issued a Preliminary Site Close-Out Report in September 2013.

        IP and GP prepared a draft deed notice pursuant to the April 2013 Consent Decree. EPA approved the final deed notice in December 2013. The deed notice was recorded by the Hunterdon County Clerk in February 2014.
        EPA issued a Final Site Close-Out Report in December 2014.
        Ongoing Maintenance
        The ongoing maintenance plan was approved in June 2013. This plan covers site security, the long-term monitoring and maintenance of the slope stabilization wall and recertification of the deed notice.
        Five-Year Review
        Hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants will remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Therefore, pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c), EPA is required to conduct a review of the remedy at least once every five years. The first Five-Year Review Report will be completed prior to February 2018, which is five years from the start of the on-site remedial action construction.
        Community Involvement
        Public participation activities for the Site have been satisfied as required by CERCLA sections 113(k) and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and 9617. A Community Advisory Group (CAG) for the Site has been meeting quarterly since 2009. EPA finalized a site-specific Community Involvement Plan in March 2010. The CAG obtains information from EPA and provides community input on the site progress, including the implementation of field activities associated with investigations, removals and remedial construction. EPA maintains a local site information repository at the Milford Public Library and regularly adds site reports and other documents.
        As part of the remedy selection process, the public was invited to comment on the proposed remedy. In June 2011, EPA released a Proposed Plan summarizing the RI/FS reports and identifying the preferred remedial alternative with the rationale for its preference. EPA held a public meeting on July 12, 2011 at the Milford Firehouse to explain the Proposed Plan and to receive public comments. EPA held a public comment period from July 1 through 31, 2011 to accept written comments. Responses to comments received at the public meeting and comments submitted during the public comment period are provided in the Responsiveness Summary section of the ROD.
        All other documents and information the EPA relied on or considered in recommending this deletion are available for the public to review at the information repositories identified above.
        Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion From the NCP
        All of the completion requirements for the Site have been met, as described in the December 29, 2014 Final Site Close-Out Report. The State of New Jersey, in January 12, 2015 letter, concurred with the proposed deletion of the Site from the NPL. As described in this Notice of Intent to Delete, the implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD for all exposure pathways; the RAO has been met, and no further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the environment.
        The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions. EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New Jersey, believes that this criterion for deletion has been met. Consequently, EPA intends to delete the Crown Vantage Landfill Site from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are available for review at the information repositories identified above.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, 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. 13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p.306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193. Dated: April 15, 2015.

          Judith Enck,
          Regional Administrator, Region 2.

      [FR Doc. 2015-10001 Filed 4-28-15; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 052201A]
        New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

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

          ACTION:
          Public meeting.

          SUMMARY:
          The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a 2-day Council meeting, on June 13 and June 14, 2001, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone.

          DATES:
          The meeting will be held on Wednesday and Thursday, June 13 and 14, at 9 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., respectively.

          ADDRESSES:
          The meetings will be held at the Providence Biltmore Hotel, 11 Dorrance Street, Kennedy Plaza, Providence, RI 02903; telephone (401) 421-0700.  Requests for special accommodations should be addressed to the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone (978) 465-0492.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (978) 465-0492.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Wednesday, June 13, 2001
        After introductions, the Council meeting will begin with a review and, if appropriate, approval of Council administrative and procedural policies.  The Groundfish Committee will follow with its report on the development of Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP).  This will include consideration of a Groundfish Committee recommendation to clarify maximum sustainable yield control rule options and the Capacity’s Committee’s recommendations concerning whether to address latent fishing effort in Amendment 13.  During the afternoon session, the Council will review and consider approval of the draft management alternatives and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the FMP for the Northeast Region skate complex.  Lastly, there will be a presentation on bioeconomic modeling and its application to fisheries management, using the American lobster fishery as a case study.
        Thursday, June 14, 2001
        During the Thursday session of the meeting, the Council will receive reports on recent activities from the Council Chairman, Executive Director, the NMFS Regional Administrator, Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaisons, NOAA General Counsel and representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard, NMFS Enforcement and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.  These reports will be followed by a NMFS briefing on the Essential Fish Habitat consultation process.  A period for public comments will then be held.  The Herring Committee will bring forward its annual specification recommendations for the 2002 fishing year.  These will include optimum yield from the fishery, total allowable level of foreign fishing and joint venture processing, as well as management area total allowable catch quotas.  Prior to making a decision on these specifications, the Council staff will present the annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for herring.  During the afternoon period, the Council’s Scallop Committee will ask for consideration of a control date for vessels that target sea scallops while not on a scallop day-at-sea.  A control date may be necessary because the Council is considering whether to limit the access of vessels holding general category permits as part of Amendment 10 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP.  The control date could apply to any vessel with or without a general category permit and/or to vessels that have a limited access scallop permit and that fish for sea scallops while not on a day-at-sea.  The Council meeting will adjourn after addressing any other outstanding business.
        Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting.  Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

        The Council will consider public comments at a minimum of two Council meetings before making recommendations to the NMFS Regional Administrator on any framework adjustment to a fishery management plan.  If she concurs with the adjustment proposed by the Council, the Regional Administrator has the discretion to publish the action either as proposed or final regulations in the Federal Register. Documents pertaining to framework adjustments are available for public review 7 days prior to a final vote by the Council.
        Special Accommodations

        This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

          Dated: May 24, 2001.
          Richard W. Surdi,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service

      [FR Doc. 01-13681 Filed 5-30-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S