        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Surface Transportation Board
        49 CFR Part 1135
        [STB Ex Parte No. 682]
        Annual Submission of Tax Information for Use in the Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method

          AGENCY:
          Surface Transportation Board, DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:

          The Surface Transportation Board (Board) proposes that the Association of American Railroads (AAR) annually update each Class I railroad's weighted average State tax rate for use in the Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method (RSAM), which is one of three benchmarks that together are used to determine the reasonableness of a challenged rate under the Board's Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases, STB Docket No. 646 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Sept. 5, 2007) (Simplified Standards). Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11145, the Board proposes that AAR calculate the weighted average State tax rate using the number of miles operated by each Class I carrier in each state and the corporate income tax rates for each State. The Board proposes that AAR submit this information on or before the due date for the Class I railroads to submit their Annual Report R-1, Schedule 250.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed by October 21, 2009. Replies are due November 10, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site, at http://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: STB Ex Parte No. 682, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.
          Copies of written comments will be available for viewing and self-copying at the Board's Public Docket Room, Room 131, and will be posted to the Board's Web site.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Timothy J. Strafford at (202) 245-0356. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Board recently completed a revision to its methodology for calculating RSAM, one of the three benchmarks used in the rate standard applied to the smallest rate disputes under Simplified Standards. See
          Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases—Taxes in Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method, STB Ex Parte No. 646 (Sub-No. 2) (STB served May 11, 2009) (RSAM Taxes). Specifically, that revision addressed the methodology used to calculate railroad-specific tax rates to be reflected in RSAM. The calculation of the railroad-specific weighted average state tax rates requires, as one component, the state tax rates applicable to each Class I railroad, which can vary by state and railroad depending on a number of factors. The Board noted in RSAM Taxes that, because of this variance, the Board would need updated tax information on an annual basis. Therefore, the Board is now instituting this proceeding to propose that AAR annually update each Class I railroad's weighted average state tax information.

        Under the Board's proposal the AAR would calculate the weighted average state tax rate for each Class I railroad using the state corporate income tax rates and the number of miles operated by each carrier in each state for the previous year. For the state corporate income tax rates, AAR would use the state corporate tax information published on the website of the Tax Foundation,1
           adjusted as necessary.2
           For the route-mile portion of the average state tax equation, AAR would use information from each railroads' respective R-1 Schedule 702 (Miles of Road at Close of Year—By States and Territories (Single Track)), column (g) of Schedule 702, which lists the total miles operated, including both “line owned” and “line operated under trackage rights.” AAR would also be required to submit workpapers detailing its calculations.

            1 See http://www.taxfoundation.org.

            2 As the Board explained in RSAM Taxes, AAR had to adjust some of the State tax information reported on the Tax Foundation Web site due to the need for updated information, the Tax Foundation's rounding of tax rates for certain States, or carrier- or State-specific adjustments such as franchise taxes, tax surcharges, and utility franchise taxes.

        The Board proposes that AAR submit the state tax information annually on or before the due date for the Class I railroads to file their Annual Report R-1, Schedule 250, which is currently April 30 of each year. The Board proposes that within 10 days of receiving the AAR's state tax information, it would issue a notice that the AAR has filed the state tax information and publish that notice in the Federal Register. The Board would allow a period of 30 days from the date of the notice for interested parties to comment. If no comments are received within 30 days, then the tax rates submitted will automatically be adopted on the 31st day. This tax information would then be used for calculating the RSAM figures for that year. If comments opposing AAR's calculations are timely filed, AAR would have 20 days to respond. The Board would then review the submission and comments and serve a decision, within 60 days from the close of the record, that either accepts, rejects, or modifies the AAR's railroad-specific tax information.
        With regard to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, this proposed action directly impacts the representative association for the Class I railroads but does not directly impact small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Board certifies that the regulations proposed herein will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of this decision is being provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business Administration.
        This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1135
          Administrative practice and procedure, Railroads, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Authority:
          5 U.S.C. 553 and 49 U.S.C. 721 and 10708.

          By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Nottingham, and Commissioner Mulvey.
          Jeffery Herzig,
          Clearance Clerk.

        Appendix
        For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Surface Transportation Board proposes to amend part 1135 of title 49, chapter X, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

          PART 1135—REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR RATE PROCEEDINGS
          1. The authority citation for part 1135 is revised to read as follows:

            Authority:
            5 U.S.C. 553, and 49 U.S.C. 721, 10701, 10704, 10708, and 11145.

          2. Add § 1135.2 to read as follows:

            § 1135.2
            Revenue Shortfall Allocation Method: Annual state tax information.

            (a) To enable the Board to calculate the revenue shortfall allocation method (RSAM), which is one of the three benchmarks that are used to determine the reasonableness of a challenged rate under one standard of the Board's Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases, STB Docket No. 646 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Sept. 5, 2007), the Association of American Railroads (AAR) shall file with the Board on or before the due date for the Class I railroads to submit their Annual Report R-1, Schedule 250, the weighted average state tax rates applicable to each Class I railroad for the previous year. The AAR shall submit workpapers detailing its calculations.
            (b) The Board will serve and publish in the Federal Register within 10 days of the AAR's filing.
            (c) Any interested party may file comments on AAR's filing within 30 days of the notice described in paragraph (b) of this section. If no comments are received within 30 days, the Board will automatically adopt AAR's weighted average state tax rates on the 31st day. If comments opposing AAR's calculations are received, AAR's response is due within 20 days of the comments. The Board will review the submission and comments and serve a decision within 60 days from the date of the close of the record that either accepts, rejects, or modifies the AAR's railroad-specific tax information.

      [FR Doc. E9-22604 Filed 9-18-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4915-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Office of the Secretary
        49 CFR Parts 27, 37, and 38
        [Docket No. OST-2006-23985]
        RIN 2105-AD54
        Transportation for Individuals With Disabilities

          AGENCY:
          Office of the Secretary (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of Public Meeting and Extension of Comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          The Department of Transportation is holding a public meeting on August 20, 2010, concerning the Department's pending rulemaking to amend its Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rules. In connection with the meeting, the comment period on this will be reopened briefly, from August 19-25, 2010.

          DATES:
          The public meeting will be held on August 20, 2010. The reopened comment period on the rulemaking will extend from August 19 through August 25, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments (identified by the agency name and DOT Docket ID Number OST-2006-23985) by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251

            Instructions: You must include the agency name (Office of the Secretary, DOT) and Docket number (OST-2006-23985) for this notice at the beginning of your comments. You should submit two copies of your comments if you submit them by mail or courier. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, and will be available to internet users. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

            Docket: For internet access to the docket to read background documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Background documents and comments received may also be viewed at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W94-302, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-9310 (voice); (202) 366-7687 (TDD); bob.ashby@dot.gov (e-mail).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On February 27, 2006, the Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to amend the Department's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rule and related regulations (71 FR 9761). The proposed amendments concerned a variety of subjects, including integrated access for persons with disabilities to trains serving new or altered intercity and commuter rail station platforms and reasonable modifications to transit provider policies and practices. The NPRM also sought comment on several upcoming issues of interest concerning surface transportation accessibility. The extended comment period for this rulemaking ended June 16, 2006.
        The Department is continuing to work towards a final rule based on this NPRM.
        Recently, the Department received a request from the American Public Transit Association (APTA), one of the commenters on the NPRM, for a meeting concerning the portion of the rulemaking relating to reasonable modification. In light of the period of time that has elapsed since the original comment period and of a meeting held between representatives of disability community organizations and Federal Railroad Administration officials concerning the rail system accessibility portion of the rulemaking (a memorandum on the meeting has been placed in the docket), the Department has decided to grant APTA's request.
        Consequently, the Department will hold a public meeting from 10 a.m.-1 p.m. on August 20, 2010, in the Department's conference center in its headquarters building at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington DC. Not only APTA, but also any other party wanting to discuss issues raised in the NPRM with Department of Transportation officials and staff, is invited to attend. A memorandum concerning the discussion at the meeting will be placed in the docket. To enable participants in the meeting or others to have responses to comments made at the meeting, or other comments they may wish to make, entered into the docket, we will briefly reopen the docket from August 19-25, 2010.

        To facilitate the Department's administration of the meeting, we request that individuals planning to attend the meeting or call in to the meeting please contact the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement to indicate their interest. You may call 202-366-4723 for this purpose or e-mail laura.reeves@dot.gov. We thank participants for cooperation with this request.

          Dated: Issued in Washington, DC this 27th day of July 2010.
          Robert S. Rivkin,
          General Counsel.

      [FR Doc. 2010-19673 Filed 8-5-10; 11:15 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0634, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0636, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0638, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0639, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0640, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0641, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0643, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0645, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0646, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0647; FRL-9216-1]
        RIN 2050-AD75
        National Priorities List, Proposed Rule No. 53

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

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

          DATES:
          Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted (postmarked) on or before December 20, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          Identify the appropriate Docket Number from the table below.

          Docket Identification Numbers by Site:

            Site name
            City/County, State
            Docket ID No.

            GBF, Inc., Dump
            Antioch, CA
            EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0647

            Armstrong World Industries
            Macon, GA
            EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0640

            Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume
            Elkton, MD
            EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0639

            Washington County Lead District—Furnace Creek
            Caledonia, MO
            EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0646

            Horton Iron and Metal
            Wilmington, NC
            EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0641

            Mansfield Trail Dump
            Byram Township, NJ
            EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0634

            Milford Contaminated Aquifer
            Milford, OH
            EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0643

            Cabo Rojo Ground Water Contamination
            Cabo Rojo, PR
            EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0638

            Hormigas Ground Water Plume
            Caguas, PR
            EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0636

            West County Road 112 Ground Water
            Midland, TX
            EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0645

        Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket number, by one of the following methods:
        • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
        • E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov.

        • Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20460.
        • Hand Delivery or Express Mail: Send comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.; EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays).

          Instructions: Direct your comments to the appropriate Docket number (see table above). EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public Docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system; that means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public Docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional Docket addresses and further details on their contents, see section II, “Public Review/Public Comment,” of the Supplementary Information portion of this preamble.

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

          I. Background
          A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
          B. What is the NCP?
          C. What is the national priorities list (NPL)?
          D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
          E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
          F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
          G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
          H. May EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned up?
          I. What is the construction completion list (CCL)?
          J. What is the sitewide ready for anticipated use measure?
          II. Public Review/Public Comment
          A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
          B. How do I access the documents?
          C. What documents are available for public review at the headquarters docket?
          D. What documents are available for public review at the regional dockets?
          E. How do I submit my comments?
          F. What happens to my comments?
          G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
          H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?
          I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
          J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the NPL?
          III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
          A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
          B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL
          IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
          A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
          1. What is Executive Order 12866?
          2. Is this proposed rule subject to Executive Order 12866 review?
          B. Paperwork Reduction Act
          1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
          2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this proposed rule?
          C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
          1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
          2. How has EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
          D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
          1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
          2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
          E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
          1. What is Executive Order 13132?
          2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this proposed rule?
          F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
          1. What is Executive Order 13175?
          2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this proposed rule?
          G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
          1. What is Executive Order 13045?
          2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this proposed rule?
          H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
          1. What is Executive Order 13211?
          2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this proposed rule?
          I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
          1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
          2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act apply to this proposed rule?

          J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

          1. What is Executive Order 12898?
          2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this proposed rule?

        I. Background
        A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

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

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

        Although a CERCLA “facility” is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance has “come to be located” (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis.
        When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the “boundaries” of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location where that contamination has come to be located, or from where that contamination came.

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

        Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the CCL, see EPA's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ccl.htm.

        J. What is the sitewide ready for anticipated use measure?

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

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

        Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public Dockets located both at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in the Regional offices. These documents are also available by electronic access at http://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the ADDRESSES section above).
        B. How do I access the documents?
        You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or the Regional Dockets after the publication of this proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters Docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for hours.

        The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.; EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/566-0276. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)
        The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:
        Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund Records and Information Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023; 617/918-1417.
        Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
        Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/814-5364.
        Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Mail code 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8862.
        Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records Center, Superfund Division SMR-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/353-5821.
        Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.
        Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th Street, Mailcode SUPRERNB, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335.
        Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6484.
        Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD-9-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-3219.
        Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.
        You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Regional Dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note that due to the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized maps may be viewed only in-person; since EPA dockets are not equipped to either copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them out electronically.
        You may use the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov to access documents in the Headquarters Docket (see instructions included in the ADDRESSES section above). Please note that there are differences between the Headquarters Docket and the Regional Dockets and those differences are outlined below.
        C. What documents are available for public review at the headquarters docket?
        The Headquarters Docket for this proposed rule contains the following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; Documentation Records describing the information used to compute the score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record.
        D. What documents are available for public review at the regional dockets?
        The Regional Dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the information in the Headquarters Docket plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference documents are available only in the Regional Dockets.
        E. How do I submit my comments?

        Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by express mail or by postal mail.
        F. What happens to my comments?

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

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

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

        In today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add nine sites to the General Superfund section of the NPL. All of the sites in this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites are presented in the tables below.

          General Superfund Section

            State
            Site name
            City/county

            GA
            Armstrong World Industries
            Macon.

            MD
            Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume
            Elkton.

            MO
            Washington County Lead District—Furnace Creek
            Caledonia.

            NC
            Horton Iron and Metal
            Wilmington.

            NJ
            Mansfield Trail Dump
            Byram Township.

            OH
            Milford Contaminated Aquifer
            Milford.

            PR
            Cabo Rojo Ground Water Contamination
            Cabo Rojo.

            PR
            Hormigas Ground Water Plume
            Caguas.

            TX
            West County Road 112 Ground Water
            Midland.

        B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL
        EPA is withdrawing the proposal to add the GBF, Inc. Dump site in Antioch, California, to the NPL, because the California Department of Toxic Substances Control has been, and will continue to be, the lead agency overseeing the site cleanup pursuant to a California consent order. Cleanup is progressing successfully and no further EPA actions are necessary. The proposed rule can be found at 57 FR 4824 (February 7, 1992). Refer to the Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0647 for supporting documentation regarding this action.
        IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
        1. What is Executive Order 12866?
        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
        2. Is this proposed rule subject to Executive Order 12866 review?
        No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act
        1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?

        According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
        2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to this proposed rule?

        This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.
        Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
        An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        2. How has EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?

        This proposed rule listing sites on the NPL, if promulgated, would not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This proposed rule, if promulgated, also would establish no standards or requirements that any small entity must meet, and would impose no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if promulgated, would not impose any requirements on any small entities. For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
        Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule where a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
        2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
        This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Proposing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Proposal does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does proposal require any action by a private party or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of proposing a site to be placed on the NPL. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of UMRA.
        This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As is mentioned above, site proposal does not impose any costs and would not require any action of a small government.
        E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
        1. What is Executive Order 13132?
        Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
        2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this proposed rule?
        This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it does not contain any requirements applicable to States or other levels of government. Thus, the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule.
        EPA believes, however, that this proposed rule may be of significant interest to State governments. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA therefore consulted with State officials and/or representatives of State governments early in the process of developing the rule to permit them to have meaningful and timely input into its development. All sites included in this proposed rule were referred to EPA by States for listing. For all sites in this rule, EPA received letters of support either from the Governor or a State official who was delegated the authority by the Governor to speak on their behalf regarding NPL listing decisions.
        F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        1. What is Executive Order 13175?
        Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have tribal implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.”
        2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this proposed rule?
        This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Proposing a site to the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
        G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
        1. What is Executive Order 13045?

        Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
        2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this proposed rule?
        This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule present a disproportionate risk to children.
        H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
        1. What is Executive Order 13211?
        Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) requires Federal agencies to prepare a “Statement of Energy Effects” when undertaking certain regulatory actions. A Statement of Energy Effects describes the adverse effects of a “significant energy action” on energy supply, distribution and use, reasonable alternatives to the action, and the expected effects of the alternatives on energy supply, distribution and use.
        2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this proposed rule?
        This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy impacts because proposing a site to the NPL does not require an entity to conduct any action that would require energy use, let alone that which would significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or usage. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
        I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
        1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
        2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act apply to this proposed rule?
        No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
        J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
        1. What Is Executive Order 12898?
        Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
        2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this rule?
        EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. As this rule does not impose any enforceable duty upon State, tribal or local governments, this rule will neither increase nor decrease environmental protection.

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

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

          Dated: October 14, 2010.
          Mathy Stanislaus,
          Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

      [FR Doc. 2010-26461 Filed 10-20-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 622
        RIN 0648-BC37
        Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 38

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 38 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 38 proposes to modify post-season accountability measures (AMs) that affect shallow-water grouper species (SWG), change the trigger for AMs, and revise the Gulf reef fish framework procedure.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before December 11, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on the amendment identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0149” by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the “Instructions” for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

            Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required field if you wish to remain anonymous).

          To submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, enter “NOAA-NMFS-2012-0149” in the search field and click on “search.” After you locate the document “Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Amendment 38,” click the “Submit a Comment” link in that row. This will display the comment web form. You can then enter your submitter information (unless you prefer to remain anonymous), and type your comment on the web form. You can also attach additional files (up to 10MB) in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Comments received through means not specified in this notice will not be considered.

          For further assistance with submitting a comment, see the “Commenting” section at http://www.regulations.gov/#!faqs or the Help section at http://www.regulations.gov.

          Electronic copies of Amendment 38 may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steve Branstetter, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The reef fish fishery of the Gulf is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Background

        Accountability measures were established for gag and red grouper in 2009 through Amendment 30B to the FMP (74 FR 17603, April 16, 2009). These AMs included the following provision: if the recreational sector annual catch limit (ACL) for gag or red grouper is exceeded in the current year, the recreational season for all SWG is shortened the following year to ensure that the gag or red grouper recreational ACL is not exceeded again. Regulations implemented through Amendment 32 to the FMP (77 FR 6988, February 10, 2012) added more AMs, including in-season closures for gag and red grouper, and overage adjustments for gag and red grouper if they are overfished. Amendment 38 would modify the post-season AMs for gag and red grouper so that the shortening of the season following a season with an ACL overage applies only to the species with landings that exceeded the ACL the prior year. Modifying the AMs would improve the likelihood of achieving optimum yield for red grouper and avoid unnecessary closures of all SWG species (i.e., gag, red grouper, black grouper, scamp, yellowfin grouper, and yellowmouth grouper).
        The current method for determining if post-season AMs have been triggered for red grouper or gag is to compute a one to 3-year moving average of recreational landings, and to compare that moving average of landings to the ACL. However, the use of a moving average has not been practicable due to the frequent changes that have occurred in the ACLs. In addition, the use of moving averages could potentially delay the implementation of AMs by unduly masking sizeable harvest overages and potentially slowing down the recovery of stocks under rebuilding. Amendment 38 would remove the 3-year moving average, allowing AMs to be based on comparison of the ACL to the current year's landings. A simple comparison of the current year's landings to the ACL could provide greater protection to the gag and red grouper stocks, be easier for fishermen to understand, and be less burdensome to administer.
        Amendment 38 would revise the list of management measures that may be established or modified by the framework procedure specified in the FMP. Specifically, Amendment 38 would add a list of the AMs that may be revised through the Gulf reef fish framework process. Typically, framework actions take less than a year to implement and are effective until amended. Changes to AMs through the framework may result in faster implementation of measures beneficial to fish stocks and fishery participants. Additionally, Amendment 38 would update the language in the framework procedure related to Council advisory panels and committees. More general language in reference to Council committees and advisory panels would replace specific references that are no longer accurate.

        A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 38 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating the proposed rule to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If that determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.
        Consideration of Public Comments
        The Council submitted Amendment 38 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation on September 10, 2012. NMFS' decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 38 will be based, in part, on consideration of comments, recommendations, and information received during the comment period on this notice of availability.
        Public comments received on or before December 11, 2012, will be considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 38. All comments received by NMFS on Amendment 38 or the proposed rule for Amendment 38 during their respective comment periods will be addressed in a final rule.

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

          Dated: October 9, 2012.
          Lindsay Fullenkamp,
          Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2012-25129 Filed 10-11-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0473; FRL-9952-29-Region 4]
        Air Plan Approval; Alabama: Volatile Organic Compounds

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a portion of a revision to the Alabama State Implementation Plan submitted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management on May 8, 2013. The revision modifies the definition of “volatile organic compounds” (VOC). Specifically, the revision adds one compound to the list of those excluded from the VOC definition on the basis that this compound makes a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before October 17, 2016.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0473 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:

          Sean Lakeman, 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. Lakeman can be reached by phone at (404) 562-9043 or via electronic mail at lakeman.sean@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's implementation plan revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

          Dated: September 2, 2016.
          V. Anne Heard,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 2016-22218 Filed 9-15-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 6560-50-P