        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 300
        [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0008; FRL-9996-05-Region 3]
        National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Strasburg Landfill Superfund Site

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of intent.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 3 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Strasburg Landfill Superfund Site (Site) located in Newlin and West Bradford Townships, Chester County, Pennsylvania from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP, Southeast Region), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance (O&M), monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by August 2, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0008, by one of the following methods:
          • https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          • Email: greaves.david@epa.gov.

          • Mail: USEPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
          • Hand delivery: USEPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0008. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov website 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 https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: USEPA Region III Administrative Records Room: 1650 Arch Street—6th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, (215) 814-3157, Business Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.; by appointment only.
          Local Repository: Kennett Library, 216 East State Street, Kennett Square, PA 19348, (610) 444-2702, Business Hours: Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

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

        I. Introduction
        EPA Region 3 announces its intent to delete the Strasburg 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 Strasburg 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 Commonwealth, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
        (1) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
        (2) All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or
        (3) 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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania before developing this Notice of Intent to Delete;
        (2) EPA has provided the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through PADEP (Southeast Region), 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 Daily Local News. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the site from the NPL;
        (6) The 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 Intended Site Deletion
        The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:
        Site Background and History

        EPA proposed the Site (EPA ID PAD000441337) to the NPL on June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23978) and added the Site to the NPL on March 31, 1989 (54 FR 13296). The Site is located south and slightly east of Strasburg Road in Newlin Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania.
        The Site includes a 24-acre inactive landfill located on two parcels totaling approximately 209 acres of undeveloped land. In addition to the 209 acres, the Site also includes an access road on a 14.5-acre parcel that provides access from Strasburg Road to the Site. The access road is located in Newlin and West Bradford Townships. The topography of the area is characterized by a combination of steep and gentle hills. In general, the land in the Site area slopes towards, and drains to the Brandywine Creek, or Briar Run, a tributary. These streams form the eastern and western boundaries of the Site area. A small wetlands area has been created on the eastern side of the landfill along Briar Run. The wetlands receive the discharge from the Site's leachate collection system prior to ultimately discharging into Briar Run. Groundwater flow at the Site is to the south, southwest, and southeast.
        Land use in the area is primarily suburban residential, with some residual agricultural areas. There are more than 300 single family residences within a one-mile radius of the Site. The drinking water to these residences is primarily supplied from groundwater. Most of the homes are served by private home wells. A 57-acre parcel, adjacent to the two parcels on which the landfill is situated and abutting Strasburg Road, was acquired by West Bradford Township in August 2007 through a property sheriff sale. The West Bradford parcel is currently used for township lawn waste composting.
        The Site began to accept municipal and industrial waste in 1978. The landfill operators were cited by PADEP for numerous operational violations, and the landfill was closed in 1984. During its period of operation, the landfill accepted approximately three million cubic yards of waste. Following closure, the landfill began discharging leachate into the surrounding area, including Briar Run.
        Initial sampling on and around the landfill showed elevated levels of vinyl chloride (VC) and trichloroethene (TCE) both in leachate seeps emanating from the landfill and also in home wells adjacent to the Site. Subsequent inspections and sampling showed that the existing landfill cap had failed in numerous locations and that contaminants were flowing both into nearby surface water streams and into the groundwater.
        PADEP required the landfill operators to collect the leachate and transport it offsite for treatment at a nearby municipal sewage treatment plant. The leachate was collected until July 1989 when the landfill operators gave notice that they would no longer operate the leachate collection system. PADEP operated the system on an interim basis until EPA took over operations of the temporary leachate collection system in September 1989.
        Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS)
        The RI for the Site was performed by Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E) for EPA beginning in March 1989 to assess the nature and extent of contamination and document the potential for contaminant migration from the Site.
        E&E field activities conducted during the RI included:
        • Installation of four shallow (MW-1S, MW-2S, MW-3S, and MW-4S) and five intermediate depth (MW1I, MW-2I, MW-3I, MW-4I, and MW-5I) downgradient monitoring wells;
        • Sampling and analysis of soils extracted during well installation;
        • Surface water, sediment, and bioassay sampling from onsite locations and locations in Briar Run and Brandywine Creek;
        • Soil gas sampling at a grid area southeast of the landfill and around the landfill perimeter;
        • Packer injection testing of the intermediate-depth monitoring wells;
        • Packer production testing of both shallow (120 feet total depth) and deep (300 feet total depth) residential wells;
        • Residential well sampling and analysis;
        • Sampling and analysis of new monitoring wells installed in 1990 and well M5, installed in 1984; and
        • Ambient air sampling.
        Contaminants of concern (COCs) at the Site included volatile and base-neutral organics and selected inorganics. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected in ambient air, soil gas, soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, and seep areas. The distribution of base-neutral and inorganic contamination was limited primarily to the sediment and water in the seep areas and in the sediment pond. The observed contaminant distribution reflected the differing mobilities of the different compounds, with the widest distribution observed in the most mobile class of compounds, VOCs. Tetrachloroethene (TCE), VC, and 1,2-dichloroethene (1,2-DCE) were the most widespread contaminants identified at this Site.
        Mechanisms for transport of organic compounds from the landfill included landfill gas emissions that elevate contaminants in the ambient air and soil gas. Gas emissions escaping through the landfill cover were measured at selected locations on the landfill using a stainless steel flux box. Elevated concentrations of PCE (up to 567 parts per billion (ppb)) and VC (up to 129 ppb) were measured in the gas collected in the flux box samples. Soil gas concentrations measured at perimeter locations surrounding the landfill had generally high concentrations of VOCs, with concentrations up to 11,000 ppb VC and up to 3,000 ppb PCE. Although maximum VOC concentrations detected in ambient air samples (0.09 ppb PCE, 0.48 ppb VC, and 0.64 ppb 1,2-DCE) were much lower than concentrations detected in the soil gas, levels still exceeded background ambient air concentrations.
        Precipitation entering the landfill through the cap generated leachate and provided an additional mechanism for contaminant migration. Leachate generated by the landfill was contaminated with organic and inorganic compounds. Once generated, leachate migrated from the landfill to the underdrain system, to the surface water as seeps via interflow, and to the groundwater. Surface water collected from the seeps and on the surrounding landfill indicated elevated concentrations of VC (19 micrograms per liter)(μg/L) and cis-1,2-DCE (54 μg/L) likely to have been derived from landfill leachate. Elevated concentrations of PCE (214 μg/L); 1,2-DCE (129 μg/L); and VC (19.5 μg/L) were detected in groundwater downgradient of the landfill.
        Two homes located downgradient of the landfill had relatively low levels of VOCs in their water supply wells (up to 80.8 μg/L total VOCs.) These homes were equipped with whole-house point-of-use carbon filters to provide potable water by EPA in 1989, as described in additional detail in the following section.

        A diversity of ecological resources exists in the area surrounding the landfill. These resources include river, wetland, forest, and open field ecosystems that harbor abundant wildlife populations. Exposure of plants and wildlife to landfill contaminants appeared to be limited to seep areas and soil on the landfill perimeter, with some limited evidence of potential exposure to aquatic biota in areas downstream from the Site. For aquatic and terrestrial life residing on the landfill perimeter and having frequent contact with contaminant source areas, there was a potential risk of toxic effects of contamination.

        Response Actions
        The remedial action objectives (RAOs) for the Site, as described in the Site decision documents, are to minimize migration of contaminants to ground and surface waters and to prevent direct contact with, or ingestion of, contaminants.
        EPA divided the cleanup of the Site into four operable units (OUs). EPA issued a series of Records of Decision (RODs) for the OUs, which selected the remedies necessary to protect human health and the environment from contaminants at the Site. The first ROD for OU1, dated June 29, 1989, addressed leachate releases into surface water and groundwater near the landfill. The selected remedy was to collect leachate and treat and dispose of it offsite, as well as provide point-of-use carbon treatment for contaminated residential wells.
        However, the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) ceased performing work at the Site in July 1989. Because the PRPs ceased the offsite disposal of collected leachate, the selected remedy outlined in the June 1989 ROD was no longer considered adequate. The first Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) was issued on January 3, 1990 to change the method of leachate treatment to onsite treatment via air-stripping and discharge to Briar Run. The onsite treatment system was constructed from March 1990 through March 1991 and the Remedial Action for OU1 was approved on March 27, 1991.
        In 1989, EPA installed whole-house carbon filtration systems in two private residences down gradient of the Site. EPA monitored and maintained the systems until PADEP took over responsibility for Operation and Maintenance (O&M) for the Site in 2001. No Site-related contaminants have been detected at levels exceeding the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in any wells prior to treatment since 1995. PADEP maintained the carbon units and monitored the groundwater from the residential wells pre-filter and post-filter until 2010 when maintenance and monitoring of the residential systems was discontinued based on the many years of sampling results not exceeding MCLs and the stability of the plume.
        The second ROD for OU2, dated June 28, 1991, addressed Site access and security. EPA installed a security fence with warning signs around the entire perimeter of the landfill from October through December 1992. The Remedial Action for OU2 was approved on December 23, 1992.
        Pursuant to the ROD for OU3, dated March 31, 1992, EPA constructed a multi-layer cap over the landfill portion of the Site, a landfill subsurface leachate collection system, and a leachate treatment system, from August 1996 through September 1999. The Remedial Action for OU3 was approved on September 29, 2000. The landfill was re-graded, creating less steep slopes, which conformed to the current landfill grading practices. All of the weeds, brush, and small trees, which had grown up on the landfill, were removed and an impermeable liner was placed over the entire landfill area. Approximately 600,000 cubic yards of earthen material was placed over the landfill as part of this reconstruction.
        The leachate treatment system actively treated all leachate from the landfill until 2010. Following the successful pilot test in 2009-2010, the onsite wetland now serves as a passive treatment system for the leachate. The leachate, after being distributed via underground level spreaders in the up-gradient portions of the wetland, eventually discharges to Briar Run. A gas-flare system which collected and safely burned gases developed in the landfill has been operated since 1999. However, due to a decrease in the volume of gas generated by the landfill, operation of the flare has become difficult. PADEP requested and EPA evaluated a change to passive gas venting for the Site. This request was approved by EPA in April 2016.
        Finally, on September 27, 1999, EPA issued a “No Action” ROD for groundwater associated with the Site (OU4). This decision was based on groundwater data which demonstrated that Site-related contaminants were not migrating offsite from under the landfill cap.

        The Preliminary Close Out Report (PCOR), documenting construction completion at the Site, was issued on September 27, 1999. Under the terms of the Superfund State Contract (SSC), PADEP has maintained and operated the Site remedies since 2001. EPA issued the Final Close Out Report (FCOR) on March 18, 2019 to document that all response actions at the Site had been successfully completed in accordance with Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-22, May 2011).
        Institutional Controls (ICs)
        ICs for the Site were developed as a result of recommendations in the 2010 Five-Year Review. The required ICs were selected via a second ESD dated September 4, 2012. The ICs selected for the Site include the following:
        • Prohibit activities on the Site within or near the existing security fencing that would in any manner disturb or interfere with the remedial systems, including the landfill cap, gas vents, monitoring wells, leachate collection and conveyance system, and security measures that prevent access to the landfill. Such prohibited activities include, but are not limited to, digging in the landfill cap or tampering with the hardware associated with the gas vents, monitoring wells, leachate collection and conveyance systems, or the security fencing.
        • Prohibit any use of landfill leachate unless approved by the EPA, in consultation with PADEP, to avoid exposure to contaminants in the leachate via ingestion, vapor inhalation or dermal contact.
        • Prohibit installation of groundwater wells on the Site within the existing security fencing without notice and approval of the EPA, in consultation with PADEP, to avoid exposure to contaminants in groundwater via ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact.
        • Prohibit installation and pumping of new groundwater wells within one-quarter of a mile of the identified plume of the Site which may influence the Site hydrology without notice and approval of EPA, in consultation with PADEP, to avoid the migration of contaminants from under the cap and exposure to contaminants in groundwater via ingestion, inhalation, or dermal contact.
        The ICs have been implemented through an Environmental Covenant (EC) recorded by the landfill property owner with the Chester County Recorder of Deeds on December 27, 2013. The EC describes the following activity and use limitations the property owner shall abide by:
        • Any and all activity on the Property that could in any manner disturb or interfere with the selected remedial systems, including the landfill cap, gas vents, monitoring wells, leachate collection and conveyance system, and security measures that prevent access to the landfill, is prohibited;
        • Any and all contact, handling, or use of landfill leachate is prohibited without the prior written approval of the Agencies;
        • The installation of groundwater wells on the property within the existing fencing is prohibited without the prior written approval of the Agencies; and

        • The installation and pumping of new groundwater wells on the Property within one-quarter mile of the identified plume is prohibited without the prior written approval of the Agencies.

        In addition, the Natural Lands Trust, Inc. (NLT), a non-profit conservancy, accepted a conservation easement from the property owner for portions of the property to permanently protect natural features of the property including: Deciduous woodlands, steep slopes, a cold-water stream and breeding bird habitat, etc. in October 2014.
        Finally, via the 2012 ESD, EPA implemented ICs placing restrictions on installation and pumping of new groundwater wells within one-quarter of a mile of the identified plume through application of the Chester County Health Department (CCHD) regulations relating to installation of wells in the county. The CCHD regulations require a permit for any new supply wells prior to installation. The CCHD regulations also require sampling of any new well installed to demonstrate that it meets drinking water standards before permission from the CCHD is granted to use the new well for drinking purposes.
        Cleanup Levels
        In a letter dated December 12, 2013, PADEP requested that EPA consider removing groundwater monitoring from PADEP's O&M obligations at the Site. EPA evaluated the request as a part of the 2015 Five-Year Review and determined that the frequency of sampling could be reduced from the biannual sampling requirement to a frequency of one sampling event per Five-Year Review cycle, to occur no later than the fourth year of the Five-Year Review cycle. Groundwater monitoring will continue to be performed by PADEP once every Five-Year Review cycle.
        The most recent sampling events occurred on April 2010 and March 2014 as a part of the 2015 Five-Year Review. Onsite and perimeter wells were sampled at this time. The 1999 OU4 ROD selected No Action for groundwater, therefore, no groundwater cleanup levels exist for the Site. However, for the purposes of evaluating the groundwater monitoring results, detected contaminant concentrations were compared to MCLs for contaminants with MCLs or to PADEP Land Recycling Program (Act 2) SHS MSCs for a residential used aquifer for contaminants without MCLs. In reviewing all the historic data, including the two most recent sampling events, it was determined that were no exceedances of the MCLs or MSCs. This remains consistent with EPA's No Action determination for groundwater in the 1999 ROD and supports the determination that the other remedial actions are operating as intended.
        As indicated above, no Site-related contaminants have been detected in residential wells at concentrations exceeding the MCLs since 1995 and sampling and O&M of the systems was discontinued in 2010. Additionally, because no Site-related contaminants have been detected in the landfill monitoring wells exceeding MCLs or MSCs, there is no potential for future impacts to residential wells from the Site.
        Operation and Maintenance
        In accordance with the SSC, PADEP has been responsible for O&M of the remedy components at the Site since September 2011. The leachate collection and treatment system treated and discharged an approximate total of 6,153,000 gallons of leachate since PADEP assumed responsibility. As mentioned earlier, the mechanical leachate treatment system was deactivated in 2010, and the onsite wetland now serves as a passive treatment system for removal of the low concentrations of contaminants from the leachate.
        The leachate, after being distributed via underground level spreaders in the up-gradient portions of the wetland, eventually discharges to Briar Run. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) equivalent discharge criteria was modified by PADEP's water program on August 2, 2013 for leachate discharge to Briar Run through passive wetlands treatment system modifications. All NPDES equivalent discharge criteria have been attained since 2013 and no problems or issues have been identified with the passive treatment system to date.
        Groundwater monitoring as a component of O&M will continue to be performed by PADEP no later than the fourth year of every Five-Year Review cycle.
        During the most recent Five-Year Review period, in the spring, summer and fall months, the landfill cap was routinely mowed approximately 6-8 times per year. The landfill vegetative cover has maintained its integrity, with no major erosion issues. EPA has recommended that PADEP evaluate low maintenance caps planted with native vegetation to reduce or eliminate mowing and increase habitat for wildlife.
        Five-Year Review

        Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and as provided in the current guidance on Five-Year Reviews, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001), EPA must conduct a statutory Five-Year Review if hazardous substances remain on-site above levels that would not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Statutory Five-Year Reviews have been conducted at the Site in 1994, 1999, 2005, 2010 and 2015. The Protectiveness Statement in the 2015 Fifth Five-Year Review was as follows: “The remedies have been implemented at this Site and are protective of human health and the environment. Institutional controls were identified and selected in the September 4, 2012 Second ESD for the Site and are being implemented through an Environmental Covenant recorded December 27, 2013, and additionally, through Chester County Health Department regulations relating to well installation. These ICs will be used to prevent exposure to waste and contaminated groundwater and to preserve the integrity of the components of the remedies (cap, fence, leachate collection and treatment system, etc.). The Site operation and maintenance and sampling plans should be updated to reflect changes in site operations, maintenance and sampling plan that are not consistent with current Site conditions.”
        The only issue and recommendation from the 2015 Five-Year Review was to “Update the O&M and Sampling Plan.” This issue and recommendation were addressed in October 2016 when an updated O&M and Sampling Plan was submitted to and approved by EPA. Data collected since the 2015 Five-Year Review does not call into question any of the findings presented in that report.
        The next Five-Year Review for this Site is scheduled to be completed in April 2020 and every five years thereafter.
        Community Involvement
        EPA community relations staff conducted an active campaign to ensure that the residents were well informed about activities at the Site. Community relations activities included the following:

        • Interviews of Township officials for Five-Year Reviews
        • Fact Sheets

        In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA's community involvement activities associated with this deletion will consist of placing the deletion docket in the local Site information repository and placing a public notice of EPA's intent to delete the Site from the NPL in the Daily Local News, a major local newspaper of general circulation. EPA is also providing a 30-day comment period and will respond to significant comments and significant data in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4)(iii)(iv).
        Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP
        Construction completion for the Site was documented in the Preliminary Closeout Report (PCOR), dated September 27, 1999. Site completion was documented in the Final Closeout Report (FCOR), dated March 18, 2019. All RAOs, performance standards, and cleanup levels established in the 1989 OU1 ROD, 1990 ESD, 1991 OU2 ROD, 1992 OU3 ROD, 1999 OU4 ROD, and the 2012 ESD have been achieved at the Site, and the Selected Remedy is protective of human health and the environment. ICs are in place and effective. No further Superfund response actions, other than O&M, monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, are necessary to protect human health and the environment.
        The procedures specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have been followed for the deletion of the Site. EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the PADEP, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. Therefore, EPA is issuing this Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.

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

          Authority:
          33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 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: June 20, 2019.
          Cosmo Servidio,
          Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.

      [FR Doc. 2019-14251 Filed 7-2-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [I.D. 080900A]
        RIN 0648-A028
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Rebuilding Overfished Fisheries

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted for Secretarial review Amendment 15 to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs (FMP).  This amendment is necessary to implement a rebuilding plan to rebuild the overfished stock of St. Matthew blue king crab.  This action is intended to ensure that conservation and management measures continue to be based upon the best scientific information available and is intended to advance the Council’s ability to achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from fisheries under its authority.

          DATES:
          Comments on the amendment must be submitted on or before October 30, 2000.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be submitted to Sue Salveson, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK  99802-1668, Attn:  Lori Gravel.  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7465.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet.  Courier or hand delivery of comments may be made to NMFS in the Federal Building, Room 453, Juneau, AK  99801.  Copies of Amendment 15 to the FMP, and the Environmental Assessment prepared for the amendment are available from the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 West 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK  99501-2252; telephone 907-271-2809.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Gretchen Harrington, 907-586-7228 or gretchen.harrington@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS declared the St. Matthew stock of blue king crab (Paralithodes platypus) overfished on September 24, 1999, because the spawning stock biomass was below the minimum stock size threshold defined in Amendment 7 to the FMP (64 FR 11390).  Amendment 7 specified objective and measurable criteria for identifying when all of the crab fisheries covered by the FMP are overfished or when overfishing is occurring.
        NMFS notified the Council once NMFS determined that the stock was overfished (64 FR 54791, October 8, 1999).  The Council then took action to develop a rebuilding plan within 1 year.  In June 2000, the Council adopted Amendment 15, the rebuilding plan, to accomplish the purposes outlined in the national standard guidelines to rebuild the overfished stock.  Amendment 15 specifies a time period for rebuilding the stock intended to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).  The rebuilding plan is estimated to allow St. Matthew blue king crab to rebuild, with a 50 percent probability, within 10 years.  The stock will be considered “rebuilt” when the stock reaches the maximum sustainable yield stock size level in 2 consecutive years.
        The rebuilding plan consists of a framework that references the State of Alaska’s harvest strategy, bycatch control measures, and habitat protection measures.
        The rebuilding plan would utilize the harvest strategy developed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and adopted by the Alaska Board of Fisheries (Board). Section 8.0 of thr FMP defers to the State of Alaska the authority to develop harvest strategies, with oversight by NMFS and the Council. The ADF&G revised harvest strategy should result in more spawning biomass, because more larger female crabs would be conserved and fewer juveniles and females would die due to incidental catch and discard mortality. This higher spawning biomass would be expected to produce year-classes when environmental conditions are favorable.
        The rebuilding plan also references the bycatch reduction measures and habitat protection measures adopted by the Board in March 2000.  The Board adopted gear restrictions to reduce bycatch of sub-legal and female blue king crab in the directed fishery.  To protect the habitat of egg-bearing females, the Board took action to close State waters around St. Matthew Island, Hall Island, and Pinnacles Island to crab fishing.  Protection of habitat and reduction of bycatch would be expected to reduce mortality on juvenile and egg-bearing female crabs, thus allowing a higher percentage of each year-class to contribute to spawning and future landings.

        The Council prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for Amendment 15 that describes the management background, the purpose and need for action, the management alternatives, and the environmental and the socio-economic impacts of the alternatives.  A copy of the EA can be obtained from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that each regional fishery management council submit each FMP or FMP amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval.  The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP or FMP amendment, immediately publish a notification in the Federal Register that the amendment is available for public review and comment.  This action constitutes such notice for FMP Amendment 15.  NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period in determining whether to approve this FMP amendment.  To be considered, a comment must be received by close of business on the last day of the comment period (see DATES), regardless of the comment’s postmark or transmission date.

          Dated:  August 24, 2000.
          Bruce C. Morehead
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-22063 Filed 8-28-00; 8:45 am]
      Billing Code: 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0023; 4500030113]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Humboldt Marten as Endangered or Threatened

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notice of initiation of scoping and request for information.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are gathering information to prepare a 12-month finding under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), on a petition to list the current classification of Humboldt marten (Martes caurina humboldtensis) as an endangered or threatened species. We provide this notice to summarize the uncertainty regarding the subspecies taxonomic classification (based on current genetics information) and, therefore, our intent to conduct an evaluation of a potential distinct population segment (DPS) of martens in coastal northern California and coastal Oregon relative to the full species classification level. We will submit a 12-month finding on the petition to the Federal Register by April 1, 2015.

          DATES:

          We request that we receive information on or before August 7, 2014. Information submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit information by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2014-0023. You may submit information by clicking on “Comment Now!”
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2014-0023; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

          We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Bruce Bingham, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521; telephone 707-822-7201; or facsimile 707-822-8411. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background

        In a petition dated September 28, 2010 (Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) 2010), the petitioners requested that we consider for listing the (then-classified) subspecies Humboldt marten (Martes americana humboldtensis), or the (now-recognized) subspecies Humboldt marten (M. caurina humboldtensis), or the Humboldt marten Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the Pacific marten (M. caurina). The petitioners further stipulated that, based on recent genetic analyses indicating that populations of marten from coastal Oregon are more closely related to M. a. humboldtensis than to M. a. caurina in the Cascades of Oregon (citing Dawson 2008, Slauson et al. 2009), the range of the subspecies or DPS of the Humboldt marten should be expanded to include coastal Oregon populations. On January 12, 2012, we published a substantial 90-day finding on the petition to list the Humboldt marten as an endangered or threatened species under the Act (77 FR 1900). For purposes of the 90-day finding, the common name Humboldt marten referred to the then-classified American marten (M. americana) populations in coastal northern California and coastal Oregon.
        The American marten (Martes americana) was originally described as a single species by Turton (1806; entire), based on specimens from eastern North America. In 1890, Merriam (1890; entire) considered a new species, M. caurina, as those martens found west of the Rocky Mountains. In 1926, the Humboldt [Pine] marten (M. c. humboldtensis) was described as a subspecies of M. caurina (Grinnel and Dixon 1926, entire); historically, this subspecies was distributed throughout the coastal, fog-influenced coniferous forests of northern California from northwestern Sonoma County north to the Oregon border (Grinnel and Dixon 1926, entire). In 1953, Wright (1953; entire) described one species, the American marten (M. americana), which included as subspecies both the Humboldt [Pine] marten subspecies (M. a. humboldtensis), and the former western marten species (M. caurina), classified as M. a. caurina.

        As noted above, at the time of our 90-day finding (77 FR 1900; January 12, 2012), the Humboldt marten was classified as Martes americana humboldtensis. Subsequently, Dawson and Cook (2012, entire) split the American marten, recognizing the Pacific marten (M. caurina) for all martens occurring west of the Rocky Mountain crest, based on genetic and morphological differences. While this split changed the species-level name of all martens occurring west of the Rocky Mountain crest from M. americana to M. caurina, subspecies epithets were not changed. Therefore, the current classification of the Humboldt marten in coastal northern California is M. c. humboldtensis, and the marten populations occurring in adjacent coastal Oregon are M. c. caurina. In addition, as currently recognized, populations of martens in the Oregon Cascades northward through the State of Washington and into British Columbia, Canada, are also M. c. caurina.

        Ongoing genetic research indicates uncertainty in the Pacific marten subspecies delineations in California and Oregon. Specifically, the best available data indicate that the Martes caurina humboldtensis population in coastal northern California (Humboldt, Siskiyou, and Del Norte Counties) and the two M. c. caurina populations in coastal Oregon (Curry, Coos, coastal portion of Douglas, coastal portion of Lane, Lincoln, and Tillamook Counties) may be a single evolutionary unit (clade) (Slauson et al. 2009, p. 1,340; Schwartz et al., in prep) (available for review at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0023). Although questions regarding the taxonomy of marten subspecies in northern California and Oregon are not new (i.e., both the petition we received (CBD and EPIC 2010) and our 90-day finding (January 12, 2012; 77 FR 1900) identified ongoing genetic research and taxonomic uncertainty), the best available information indicates that the original designation of two separate marten subspecies occurring in coastal northern California and coastal Oregon may be invalid. However, there is currently insufficient information to conclude with reasonable certainty that coastal Oregon populations of Pacific marten should be classified as M. c. humboldtensis. Such a conclusion is confounded by small sample sizes and lack of corroborating information (e.g., similar morphological or physiological traits among the two clades) that would lend further support to a conclusion that these two groups should be considered the same subspecies.

        According to section 3(16) of the Act, we may consider for listing any of three categories of vertebrate animals: A species, subspecies, or distinct population segment (DPS; see the Service's 1996 Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Endangered Species Act at 61 FR 4722). We refer to each of these categories as a potential “listable entity.” We have been petitioned to list collectively two groups of the Pacific marten (two populations in Oregon and one in California) that are currently recognized as belonging to two separate subspecies (as described above). To ensure we are evaluating the most accurate listable entity based on the best scientific and commercial data currently available (including unpublished genetics information), and to ensure we are being fully responsive to the petition (CBD and EPIC 2010), we consider it reasonable that a coastal distinct population segment (DPS) of the Pacific marten constitute the listable entity for our 12-month status review. As such, we consider this DPS to include the currently recognized Martes caurina humboldtensis (i.e., Humboldt marten) and the coastal populations of M. caurina caurina in Oregon (i.e., Oregon Coast Range group). We believe this entity is reasonable for consideration at this time given:
        (1) The best available data (e.g., new genetics information, similar habitat usage) suggest that the coastal northern California marten population and the coastal Oregon marten populations may be a single evolutionary entity as opposed to two separate entities.

        (2) Existing genetics information suggests that subspecies-level taxonomy of M. c. humboldtensis, M. c. caurina, and possibly other subspecies of the Pacific marten as currently classified may be inaccurate.
        (3) The DPS policy states that the population segment under consideration must be evaluated for discreteness and significance in relation to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs. Ordinarily, in the present case we would evaluate the marten populations relative to the subspecies to which they belong, but the populations in question currently represent two separate subspecies and there is uncertainty as to the legitimacy of those subspecies classifications, rendering such an evaluation invalid.

        (4) Uncertainty in the subspecies-level taxonomy of Pacific marten logically necessitates that we elevate our evaluation of the DPS relative to the Pacific marten at the full species-level. In other words, we would apply the criteria for evaluating a coastal DPS of the Pacific marten relative to the full species Pacific marten (Martes caurina) as a whole.
        (5) The DPS policy states that “In all cases, the organisms in a population are members of a single species or lesser taxon.” Therefore, given (1) through (4) above, we think that an evaluation at the species level is appropriate.
        Under the DPS policy, two basic elements are considered in the decision regarding the establishment of a population of a vertebrate species as a possible DPS. The question as to whether a population or group of populations qualifies as a DPS requires a finding that the population is both: (1) Discrete in relation to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs, and (2) biologically and ecologically significant to the taxon to which it belongs. If the population meets the first two criteria under the DPS policy, we then proceed to the third element in the process, which is to evaluate the population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing as an endangered or threatened species.
        Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions:
        (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
        (2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. As the marten populations in question here do not transcend an international boundary, this criterion does not apply.
        If we determine that a vertebrate population segment is discrete under one or more of the conditions described in our DPS policy, then we consider its biological and ecological significance to the larger taxon to which it belongs. Because precise circumstances are likely to vary considerably from case to case, the DPS policy does not describe all the classes of information that might be used in determining the biological and ecological importance of a discrete population. However, the DPS policy describes four possible classes of information that provide evidence of a population segment's biological and ecological importance to the taxon to which it belongs. This consideration of the population segment's significance may include, but is not limited to, the following:
        (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
        (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon;
        (3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; or
        (4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
        A population segment needs to satisfy only one of these conditions to be considered significant. Furthermore, other information may be used as appropriate to provide evidence for significance.

        As indicated above, we anticipate concluding an evaluation of the coastal DPS of Pacific marten and submitting a 12-month finding to the Federal Register by April 1, 2015. We appreciate any information regarding our consideration of the coastal northern California and coastal Oregon populations of Pacific marten as a single listable entity (see Information Requested).
        Information Requested
        We will accept written information during this 45-day scoping period on our future 12-month finding evaluation of the putative coastal DPS of Pacific marten. We will consider information from all interested parties. We intend that any final action resulting from our evaluation be as accurate as possible and based on the best available scientific and commercial data.
        We are interested in the following information for Pacific martens, specifically Humboldt martens in coastal northern California and coastal Oregon populations of Pacific marten:

        (1) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering.

        (2) Genetics and taxonomy, especially:

        (a) Information (e.g., morphological, genetic, physiological, ecological, behavioral) supporting or contesting current subspecies taxonomy of Martes caurina in coastal northern California and Oregon.

        (b) Information supporting or contesting the validity of the historical geographic boundaries of the Pacific marten subspecies, Martes caurina caurina.

        (3) Information to inform a DPS designation, especially:
        (a) Information supporting or contesting the combining of the population of Pacific martens in northwest California with the coastal Oregon populations as a single listable entity under our DPS policy.
        (b) Information to inform our evaluation as to whether martens in coastal northern California and coastal Oregon do or do not meet the criteria for discreteness and significance under our DPS policy.

        (4) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for a species, subspecies, or DPS under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
        (c) Disease or predation;
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
        (5) Exposure to toxicants, including anticoagulant rodenticides, including information related to:
        (a) Scope of exposure within coastal northern California and coastal Oregon;
        (b) Severity of exposure to individuals; and
        (c) Potential impacts of exposure to populations.
        (6) Historical and current range of the Pacific marten in coastal northern California and coastal Oregon, including distribution patterns.
        (7) Historical and current population levels of the Pacific marten in coastal northern California and coastal Oregon, and current and projected trends.
        (8) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the Pacific marten in coastal northern California and coastal Oregon, or its habitat.
        (9) Effects of climate change on habitat of the Pacific marten, including changes in fire frequency and intensity.

        (10) Whether our suggested approach to evaluating the presently recognized subspecies Humboldt marten (M. c. humboldtensis) collectively with the Oregon coastal populations of the Pacific marten (a subset of M. c. caurina) as a potential single DPS of the full species Martes caurina is supported by the best available scientific and commercial data.

        If you submitted comments or information on the 90-day finding (77 FR 1900) during the initial comment period from January 12, 2012, to March 12, 2013, please do not resubmit them. We will incorporate them into the public record and we will fully consider them in the preparation of our 12-month finding. Our 12-month finding will take into consideration all written comments and any additional information we receive during the previous comment period and this scoping period. If you submit information during this scoping period, please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include. You may submit your information by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send information only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
        If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. We will post all hardcopy information received on http://www.regulations.gov as well. If you submit hardcopy information that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

        Information we receive, as well as supporting documentation we use in preparing our 12-month finding, will be available via Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0023 upon publication of our 12-month finding in the Federal Register.
        References Cited

        A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
        Author
        The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the Pacific Southwest Regional Office and Arcata Fish and Wildlife Field Office.
        Authority

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

          Dated: June 12, 2014
          Stephen Guertin,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2014-14513 Filed 6-20-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 65
        [EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871; FRL-9688-8]
        RIN 2060-AR00
        National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks, and Closed Vent Systems and Control Devices; and Revisions to the National Uniform Emission Standards General Provisions

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Extension of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          On March 26, 2012, the EPA proposed the National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks, and Closed Vent Systems and Control Devices, herein referred to as Uniform Standards. The EPA is extending the deadline for written comments on the proposed amendments by 90 days to September 24, 2012. The EPA received requests for this extension from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC). API and ACC each requested an extension in order to fully evaluate the potential impact of the Uniform Standards on subparts applicable to the refining and chemical industries, respectively. The EPA finds these requests to be reasonable due to the multiple source categories potentially affected by this action.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before September 24, 2012.

          ADDRESSES:
          Technical comments pertinent to the Uniform Standards should be identified as follows:
          • Uniform Standards for Storage Vessels and Transfer Operations should be marked, “Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871.”
          • Uniform Standards for Equipment Leaks should be marked, “Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869.”
          • Uniform Standards for Control Devices should be marked, “Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868.”
          • Uniform Standards General Provisions or General Comments on the Uniform Standards should be marked, “Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870.”
          Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket ID No., by one of the following methods:
          • www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate).
          • Fax: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate).
          • Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
          • Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate). Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870; or EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871 (as appropriate). The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through 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, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

            Docket. The EPA has established dockets for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For information regarding the proposed General Provisions to the National Uniform Emission Standards, contact Ms. Brenda Shine, (919) 541-3608, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-3608; fax number (919) 541-0246; email address: shine.brenda@epa.gov.

          For information regarding the proposed National Uniform Emission Standards for Equipment Leaks, contact either: Ms. Jodi Howard, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4607; fax number (919) 541-0246; email address: howard.jodi@epa.gov; or Ms. Andrea Siefers, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1185; fax number (919) 541-0246; email address: siefers.andrea@epa.gov.

          For information regarding the proposed National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations, contact Mr. Nick Parsons, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5372; fax number (919) 541-0246; email address: parsons.nick@epa.gov.

          For information regarding the proposed National Uniform Emission Standards For Control Devices, contact Mr. Andrew Bouchard, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-4036; fax number (919) 541-0246; email address: bouchard.andrew@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        For the reasons noted above, the public comment period will now end on September 24, 2012.
        How can I get copies of the proposed rule and other related information?

        The proposed rule titled, National Uniform Emission Standards for Storage Vessel and Transfer Operations, Equipment Leaks, and Closed Vent Systems and Control Devices; and Revisions to the National Uniform Emission Standards General Provisions, was published on March 26, 2012 (77 FR 17898). The EPA has established public dockets for the proposed rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0868, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0869, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0870, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0871, and a copy of the proposed rule is available in the docket. Information on how to access the docket is presented above in the ADDRESSES section.

          Dated: June 11, 2012.
          Gina McCarthy,
          Assistant Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2012-14784 Filed 6-15-12; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 39 and 52
        [FAR Case 2014-006; Docket No. 2014-0006; Sequence No. 1]
        RIN 9000-AM72
        Federal Acquisition Regulation; Year Format

          AGENCIES:
          Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to delete regulations relating to the year 2000 compliance.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat at one of the addressees shown below on or before May 27, 2014 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2014-006 by any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “FAR Case 2014-006”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “FAR Case 2014-006.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Comment Now” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2014-006” on your attached document.
          • Fax: 202-501-4067.
          • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat (MVCB), ATTN: Hada Flowers, 1800 F Street NW., 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite FAR Case 2014-006, in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-0650, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAR Case 2014-006.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to delete obsolete coverage relating to the year 2000 compliance at FAR 39.002, 39.101(a), and 39.106. Also, the rule will make conforming changes to FAR 39.107 and the clause prescription at FAR 52.239-1. The year 2000 coverage is no longer needed because all of the issues addressing the transition to year 2000 compliance language have been resolved.
        In 1997, an interim rule, FAR Case 96-607, was promulgated to address year 2000 compliance issues, (see 62 FR 273, January 2, 1997). FAR Case 96-607 was finalized on August 22, 1997 (62 FR 44830). Subsequently, Section 622 of the Omnibus Appropriations and Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) provided that “None of the funds appropriated in this or any other Act shall be used to acquire information technologies which do not comply with FAR section 39.106 (Year 2000 compliance) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless an agency's Chief Information Officer determines that noncompliance with section 39.106 is necessary to the function and operation of the requesting agency or the acquisition is required by a signed contract with the agency in effect before the date of enactment of this Act. Any waiver granted by the Chief Information Officer shall be reported to the Office of Management and Budget, and copies shall be provided to Congress.” FAR Case 98-306 was opened to incorporate this restriction in FAR part 39. The final FAR rule was published on June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32747) and has remained unchanged (See FAR 39.101).
        II. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        III. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because this rule is proposing to delete obsolete language from the regulation.
        Nonetheless, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been performed and is summarized below:

          This rule amends the FAR to delete obsolete coverage relating to the year 2000 compliance at FAR 39.002, 39.101(a), and 39.106. Also, the rule will make conforming changes to FAR 39.107 and the clause prescription at FAR 52.239-1. The year 2000 coverage is no longer needed because all of the issues addressing the transition to year 2000 compliance language have been resolved. Based upon Federal Procurement Data System data, there were 9021 Information Technology contractors in fiscal year 2013, of which 6284 were small business. The impact on small business is expected to be positive since we are deleting an obsolete requirement.

        The Regulatory Secretariat has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat. DOD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
        DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C 610 (FAR Case 2014-006), in correspondence.
        IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The proposed rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 39 and 52
          Government procurement.

          Dated: March 19, 2014.
          William Clark,
          Acting Director, Office of Government-Wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

        Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose to amend 48 CFR parts 39 and 52 as set forth below:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 39 is revised to read as follows:

          Authority:
           40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

          PART 39—ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

            39.002
            [Amended]

        2. Amend section 39.002 by removing the definition “Year 2000 compliant”.

          39.101
          [Amended]

        3. Amend section 39.101 by removing paragraph (a); and redesignating paragraphs (b) through (e), as paragraphs (a) through (d).

          39.106
          [Removed]

          39.107
          [Redesignated as 39.106]

        4. Remove section 39.106 and redesignate section 39.107 as section 39.106.

          PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        5. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 52 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113

          52.239-1
          [Amended]

        6. Amend section 52.239-1 by removing from the introductory text “39.107” and adding “39.106” in its place.

      [FR Doc. 2014-06528 Filed 3-24-14; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 449
        [EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0038; FRL-9092-2]
        RIN 2040-AE69
        Effluent Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Airport Deicing Category; Extension of Public Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          On August 28, 2009 (74 FR 44676), EPA published a proposed rule entitled “Effluent Limitation Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Airport Deicing Category; Proposed Rule.” Written comments on the proposed rulemaking were to be submitted to EPA on or before December 28, 2009 (a 120-day public comment period). Since publication, the Agency has received several requests for additional time to submit comments. EPA is extending the public comment period until February 26, 2010.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before February 26, 2010.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0038 by one of the following methods:
          • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: OW-Docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0038.
          • Mail: Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 4203M, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0038. Please include a total of 3 copies.
          • Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0038. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information by calling 202-566-2426.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0038. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA 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.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. A detailed record index, organized by subject, is available on EPA's Web site at http://epa.gov/guide/airport. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is 202-566-2426.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Eric Strassler, Engineering and Analysis Division, telephone 202-566-1026; e-mail: strassler.eric@epa.gov.

            Dated: December 8, 2009.
            Peter S. Silva,
            Assistant Administrator for Water.

      [FR Doc. E9-29688 Filed 12-11-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 18
        RIN 1018-AH86
        Florida Manatees; Incidental Take During Specified Activities; Extension of Public Comment Period

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, provide notice that the public comment period for the proposed regulations that would authorize for the next five years the incidental, unintentional take of a small number of Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris) resulting from government activities related to watercraft and watercraft access facilities is extended to allow all interested parties to submit written comments on the proposal and the draft environmental impact statement. Comments previously submitted during the comment period need not be resubmitted as they will be incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in the final determination on the proposal.

          DATES:
          The original comment period is scheduled to close on January 13, 2003. The comment period is hereby extended until January 27, 2003. Comments from all interested parties must be received by the closing date. Any comments that are received after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this proposal.

          ADDRESSES:
          If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of the following methods:
          1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive South, Suite 310, Jacksonville, Florida 32216.
          2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Jacksonville Field Office, at the above address, or fax your comments to 904/232-2404.
          3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to manatee@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit electronic comment files, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section.

          We request that you identify whether you are commenting on the proposed rule or draft environmental impact statement. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, at the above address. You may obtain copies of the draft environmental impact statement from the above address or by calling 904/232-2580, or from our Web site at http://northflorida.fws.gov. Information regarding this proposal is available in alternative formats upon request.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Pete Benjamin, Assistant Field Supervisor (see
            ADDRESSES section), telephone 904/232-2580; or visit our Web site at http://northflorida.fws.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407) sets a general moratorium, with certain exceptions, on the taking and importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products and makes it unlawful for any person to take, possess, transport, purchase, sell, export, or offer to purchase, sell, or export, any marine mammal or marine mammal product unless authorized. “Take” as defined by the MMPA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 18) means “to harass, hunt, capture, collect, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, collect, or kill any marine mammal, including, without limitation, any of the following—the collection of dead animals or parts thereof; the restraint or detention of a marine mammal, no matter how temporary; tagging a marine mammal; or the negligent or intentional operation of an aircraft or vessel, or the doing of any other negligent or intentional act which results in the disturbing or molesting of a marine mammal.”
        “Harassment” is defined under the MMPA as, “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which—(i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”
        The prohibitions on take apply to all persons, including Federal, State, and local government agencies, with the exception of humane taking (including euthanasia) by government officials while engaged in their official duties (16 U.S.C. 1379(h)).

        Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA allows the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, through the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), upon request, to authorize by specific regulation the incidental unintentional take of a small number of marine mammals by U.S. citizens engaged in specific identified activities (other than commercial fishing) within specific geographic areas. On November 14, 2002, the Service published a proposed rule and notice of availability of a draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding regulations that would authorize for the next five years the incidental unintentional take of a small number of Florida manatees (Trichechus manatus latirostris) resulting from government activities related to watercraft and watercraft access facilities within three regions of Florida (67 FR 69078).
        Public Comments Solicited
        Any final action resulting from this proposal will be based on the best available information. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule.
        We welcome any and all suggestions, materials, and recommendations to assist and guide us in this endeavor. Specifically, we are seeking:
        1. Information regarding manatee population studies/data, particularly for the Southwest Florida Stock;
        2. Information regarding measures, including technological measures, that would result in the least practicable impact on manatees and their habitat;
        3. Information regarding the effectiveness of mitigating measures currently in place;
        4. Information regarding the potential social and economic effects of the proposed regulations;
        5. Information regarding means of minimizing potential social and economic effects of the negative finding for the Southwest Stock;
        6. Suggested means and measures to report and monitor the effects of incidental take on manatees;
        7. Suggested additional research efforts related to the findings of this rule; and
        8. Nominations for participants to serve on the Working Group on Watercraft-related Incidental Take.
        Additionally, we are requesting specific public comment on the following issues pertaining to the economic analysis, which is printed in its entirety in the EIS for this action:
        1. Information to better model the change in boater behavior and/or the economic surplus impacts of changes in marine access;
        2. Additional estimates of the difference in residential property values with and without the potential to construct private boat docks;
        3. Information to estimate the number and regional distribution of out-of-state boaters who use their boats in Florida waters; and
        4. Alternative regional impact models (i.e., alternatives to IMPLAN) that would more accurately capture changes in sector outputs and employment resulting from the rule.

        Please submit comments as a DOS text file format and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include “Attn—RIN 1018-AH86” and your name and return address in your email message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your email message, contact us directly by calling the Jacksonville Field Office (see
          ADDRESSES section).
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their name and home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. We will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
        Our final determination on the proposed regulations will take into consideration comments and any additional information received by the date specified above. Previous comments and information submitted during the comment period need not be resubmitted. The comment period is extended to January 27, 2003.
        Author

        The primary author of this notice is Stefanie Barrett, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
          ADDRESSES).
        Authority
        The authority to establish regulations that would authorize for the next five years the incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of Florida manatees is provided by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407), as amended.

          Dated: December 27, 2002.
          David P. Smith,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 03-357 Filed 1-8-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P