[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 36294]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14304]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2013-25]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR). The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory
activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or
omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal
status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before July 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2013-
0437 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments digitally.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Menkin, ANM-113, (425) 227-
2793, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356, or Andrea Copeland, ARM-208, Office of Rulemaking, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW; Washington, DC
20591; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 267-8081.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 12, 2013.
Brenda D. Courtney,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2013-0437.
    Petitioner: Quiet Wing Aerospace, LLC.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.981(b).
    Description of Relief Sought: For Boeing Model 737-400 airplanes,
to allow the use of fuel vapor temperature instead of fuel temperature
in the determination of tank flammability, as specified in Appendix
N25.2 paragraph (a), this being the method of determination of tank
flammability required by 14 CFR 25.981(b).

[FR Doc. 2013-14304 Filed 6-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 76376]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26478]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4285-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

North Carolina; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4285-DR), dated October 10, 2016,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective October 13, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of October 10, 2016.

    Dare and Hyde Counties for Individual Assistance (already
designated for assistance for debris removal and emergency
protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
    Jones County for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris
removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B),
including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-26478 Filed 11-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: August 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 39685-39688]
[DOCID:fr07au09-62]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

July 31, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC09-98-000.
    Applicants: Barton Windpower LLC, Barton Windpower II LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization of Transaction Under
Section 203 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-5032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: EC09-99-000.
    Applicants: MidAmerican Energy Company.
    Description: Application of MidAmerican Energy Company for approval
of acquisition of additional interest in transmission line pursuant to
Section 203 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-5122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER98-4109-004; ER01-1178-005; ER03-175-008; ER03-
394-006; ER03-427-006; ER07-265-010; ER08-100-009; ER99-3426-010.
    Applicants: El Dorado Energy, LLC; Sempra Generation;
Termoelectrica U.S., LLC; Elk Hills Power, LLC; Mesquite Power LLC;
Sempra Energy Solutions LLC; Sempra Energy Trading LLC; San Diego Gas &
Electric Company.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status--Sites for New
Generation Capacity Development.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-5051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-1435-019.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status pursuant to Section
35.42(d).
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-5020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-1115-009; ER00-3562-010; ER00-38-009; ER01-
2688-011; ER01-2887-008; ER01-480-008; ER02-1319-008; ER02-1367-006;
ER02-1633-006; ER02-1959-007; ER02-2227-008; ER02-2229-007; ER02-600-
009; ER03-838-007; ER04-1081-005; ER04-1099-006; ER04-1100-006; ER04-
1221-005; ER04-831-007; ER03-1288-005; ER03-209-007; ER03-24-007; ER03-
25-005; ER03-341-006; ER03-342-006; ER03-446-007; ER03-49-007; ER05-67-
004; ER05-68-004; ER05-819-005; ER05-820-005; ER06-441-004; ER06-741-
005; ER06-742-005; ER06-749-005; ER06-750-005; ER06-751-006; ER06-752-
005; ER06-753-004; ER06-755-004; ER06-756-004; ER07-1335-005; ER09-71-
001; ER99-970-009; ER09-1084-002; ER99-1983-007; ER98-1767-018.
    Applicants: Calpine Energy Services, L.P., Carville Energy LLC,
Columbia Energy LLC, Bethpage Energy Center 3, LLC, Santa Rosa Energy
Center, LLC, Blue Spruce Energy Center, LLC, South Point Energy Center,
LLC, Delta Energy Center, LLC, Calpine Construction Finance Company,
LP, Calpine Newark, LLC, Calpine Philadelphia, Inc, KIAC Partners,
Nissequogue Cogen Partners, Geysers Power Company, LLC, Otay Mesa
Energy Center, LLC, Calpine Power America--CA, LLC, Calpine Power
America--OR, LLC, CES Marketing IX, LLC, CES Marketing V, L.P., CES
Marketing X, LLC, PCF2, LLC, Power Contract Financing, LLC, Mankato
Energy Center, LLC, Riverside Energy Center, LLC, Auburndale Peaker
Energy Center, L.L.C., TBG Cogen Partners, Zion Energy LLC, Rocky
Mountain Energy Center, LLC, Rockgen Energy LLC, Pine Bluff Energy,
LLC, Pastoria Energy Center, LLC, Morgan Energy Center, LLC, Mobile
Energy LLC, Metcalf Energy Center, LLC, Los Medanos Energy Center LLC,
Los Esteros Critical Energy Facility LLC, Hermiston Power, LLC, Goose
Haven Energy Center, LLC, Gilroy Energy Center, LLC, Decatur Energy
Center, LLC, Creed Energy Center, LLC, CPN Pryor Funding Corporation,
CPN Bethpage 3rd Turbine Inc., Calpine Oneta Power, LP, Calpine Gilroy
Cogen, L.P., Broad River Energy LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status pursuant to Section
35.42(d) of Auburndale Peaker Energy Center, L.L.C., et al.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-5114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-1780-011; ER00-840-012; ER01-137-010; ER01-
2641-015; ER01-2690-013; ER01-557-015; ER01-559-015; ER01-560-015;
ER01-596-009; ER02-1942-012; ER02-2509-010; ER02-553-013; ER02-77-013;
ER02-963-013; ER03-720-014; ER05-524-008; ER09-43-002; ER94-389-034;
ER99-2992-011; ER99-3165-012.
    Applicants: Big Sandy Peaker Plant, LLC, Tenaska Alabama II
Partners, L.P., Tenaska Alabama Partners, L.P., Tenaska Georgia
Partners, L.P., Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd., High Desert Power
Project LLC, Tenaska Power Services Co., Wolf Hills Energy, LLC,
Rolling Hills Generating L.L.C., Tenaska Washington Partners, L.P.,
Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC, Alabama Electric Marketing, LLC,
California Electric Marketing, LLC, Crete Energy Venture, LLC, Kiowa
Power Partners, L.L.C., Tenaska Gateway Partners, Ltd., Tenaska
Virginia Partners, LP, University Park Energy, LLC, New Covert
Generating Co., LLC, New Mexico Electric Marketing, LLC, Texas Electric
Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status pursuant to Section
35.42(d).
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-757-003.
    Applicants: Victoria International LTD.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis of Victoria
International LTD.
    Filed Date: 07/21/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090721-5103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-615-051; ER09-241-003; ER09-240-003; ER09-213-
001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: ISO Quarterly Reports on Market Performance.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1014-008.
    Applicants: NYISO.
    Description: NYISO Sixth Price Validation Informational Report.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-5021.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-656-005.
    Applicants: Shell Energy North America (US), L.P.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Shell Energy North
America (US), L.P.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-5120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-771-001.
    Applicants: North Allegheny Wind, LLC.
    Description: North Allegheny Wind, LLC submits revised market based
rate tariff and a notice of change in status.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1317-004.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Q2 2009 Quarterly Report on Progress in Processing
Interconnection Requests of the California Independent System Operator
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1515-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
    Description: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc submits
Orginal Service Agreement 1484 to FERC Open Access Transmission Tariff,
Original Volume 1 under NYISO, Inc to be effective 8/1/09 under ER09-
1515.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1516-000.
    Applicants: WSPP Inc.
    Description: WSPP Inc. submits proposed revisions to the WSPP
Agreement.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0236.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1517-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits notice of termination and consent to termination of the Large
Connection Agreement among Whistling Wind WI Center, LLC, American
Transmission Company, and the Midwest ISO.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0235.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1518-000.
    Applicants: RRI Energy Electric Solutions, LLC.
    Description: RRI Energy Electric Solutions, LLC submits notice of
cancellation of its FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0237.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1519-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits revised
sheets to the Interconnection Facilities Agreement Service Agreement
No. 12 between SCE and Pastoria Energy Facility, LLC.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0238.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1520-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits amended
sheets to its First Revised FERC Electric Rate Schedule 86, a
transmission service agreement between PNM and the United States of
America etc.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0247.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1521-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Co submits Transmission Owner
Tariff 2010--Exhibits PGE-1 through PGE-18.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1523-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc submits notice of termination of
First Revised Rate Schedule No. 104 et al.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1524-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Wyoming, LLC, Cheyenne Light Fuel & Power
Company.
    Description: Black Hills Wyomong, LLC et al. submits a Power
Purchase Agreement under which Black Hills Wyoming will sell unit-
contingent electric capacity and energy to CLFP on a long-term basis.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1525-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits Second Revised Sheet 1044 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth
Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1526-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest ISO submits revised tariff sheets revising
certain provision of the Amended and Restated Midwest Contingency
Reserve Sharing Group Agreement.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1527-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc submits Original
Service Agreement 309 to FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 3
to be effective 8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES09-41-000.
    Applicants: PATH West Virginia Transmission Company.
    Description: Application of PATH West Virginia Transmission
Company, LLC for authorization under Section 204(A).
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-5103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ES09-42-000.
    Applicants: PATH Allegheny Transmission Company, LLC, PATH
Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Application of PATH Allegheny Transmission Company,
LLC and PATH Allegheny Virginia Transmission Corporation for
authorization under Section 204(A).
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-5124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ES09-43-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Application of NorthWestern Corporation for
Authorization Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ES09-44-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Application of NorthWestern Corporation for
Authorization Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-5068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:
    Docket Numbers: RR06-1-023; RR07-1-006; RR07-2-006; RR07-3-007;
RR07-4-006; RR07-5-007; RR07-6-008; RR07-7-009; RR07-8-007.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corp.
    Description: Compliance Filing of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation in Response to June 1, 2009 Order.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be

listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an
eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling
link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18910 Filed 8-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 180 (Friday, September 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57662-57671]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23652]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001; EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0640 and 0641, EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2011-0057, 0058, 0061, 0062, 0065, 0066, 0070, 0072, 0074, 0076, 0077,
and 0078, FRL-9464-6]
RIN 2050-AD75

National Priorities List, Final Rule No. 52

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final Rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow EPA to assess the nature and extent of public
health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule adds 15 sites to the NPL, all to the General
Superfund Section.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP
is October 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: For addresses for the Headquarters and Regional dockets, as
well as further details on what these dockets contain, see section II,
``Availability of Information to the Public'' in the ``Supplementary
Information'' portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch;
Assessment and Remediation Division; Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mailcode 5204P); U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW; Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What Is the NCP?
    C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?
    E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?
    G. How Are Sites Removed from the NPL?
    H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are
Cleaned Up?
    I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
    J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure?
II. Availability of Information to the Public
    A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Final Rule?
    B. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Headquarters
Docket?
    C. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Regional
Dockets?
    D. How Do I Access the Documents?
    E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
    A. Additions to the NPL
    B. Site Name Change
    C. What Did EPA Do with the Public Comments It Received?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
13563
    1. What Are Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563?
    2. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 and
Executive Order 13563 Review?
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this final rule?
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    2. How has EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    2. Does UMRA apply to this final rule?
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this final rule?
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this final rule?
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this final rule?
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
    1. What is Executive Order 13211?
    2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this final rule?
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
apply to this final rule?
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    1. What is Executive Order 12898?
    2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this final rule?
    K. Congressional Review Act
    1. Has EPA submitted this Rule to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office?
    2. Could the effective date of this Final Rule change?
    3. What could Cause a Change in the effective date of this rule?

I. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

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

B. What is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR part
300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and
Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets
guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of
releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may
present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or
welfare. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent
comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix
B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B)
of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list
of ``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and requires
that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended
primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further
investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and
environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance,
however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner
of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean
that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA (the ``General
Superfund Section''), and one of sites that are owned or operated by
other Federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities Section''). With
respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section, these sites are
generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. Under Executive
Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each
Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at
facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although
EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (``HRS'')
score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL.

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS,
which EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The
HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of

uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a
threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR
51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to
CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four
pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a
matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the
HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B),
each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed
on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires
that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility
designated by each State as the greatest danger to public health,
welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State. This
mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2).
(3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score,
if all of the following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
     EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat
to public health.
     EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use
its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to
the release.
    EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'')
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions.
***'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' EPA
may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases,
including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
    EPA regulations provide that the Remedial Investigation (``RI'')
``is a process undertaken * * * to determine the nature and extent of
the problem presented by the release'' as more information is developed
on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the Feasibility Study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5).
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting information to the Agency at any
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

    EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the
following criteria have been met:
    (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been
implemented and no further response action is required; or
    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.

H. May EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned
up?

    In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of
NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995).
Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may
have been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

I. What is the construction completion list (CCL)?

    EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal
significance.
    Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical
construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other
requirements have been achieved; (2) EPA has determined that the
response action should be limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies
for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the
CCL, see EPA's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ccl.htm.

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

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

II. Availability of Information to the Public

A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule?

    Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites
in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA
Headquarters and in the Regional offices.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov (see table below for Docket Identification
numbers). Although not all Docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
Docket materials through the Docket facilities identified below in
section II D.

                                      Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Site name                   City/county, state                       Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Ledge Mine....................  Rogue River--Siskiyou       EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0057
                                      National Forest, CA.
New Idria Mercury Mine.............  Idria, CA.................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0058
Armstrong World Industries.........  Macon, GA.................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0640
Sandoval Zinc Company..............  Sandoval, IL..............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0061
Gary Development Landfill..........  Gary, IN..................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0062
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp--Columbus.  Columbus, MS..............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0065
Red Panther Chemical Company.......  Clarksdale, MS............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0066
Horton Iron and Metal..............  Wilmington, NC............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0641
Garfield Ground Water Contamination  Garfield, NJ..............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0070
Chevron Questa Mine................  Questa, NM................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0072
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water   New Cassel/Hicksville, NY.  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0074
 Contamination.
North Ridge Estates................  Klamath Falls, OR.........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0076
US Finishing/Cone Mills............  Greenville, SC............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0077
Alamo Contaminated Ground Water....  Alamo, TN.................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0078
Falcon Refinery....................  Ingleside, TX.............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What documents are available for review at the headquarters docket?

    The Headquarters Docket for this rule contains, for each site, the
HRS score sheets, the Documentation Record describing the information
used to compute the score, pertinent information regarding statutory
requirements or EPA listing policies that affect the site, and a list
of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. For sites that
received comments during the comment period, the Headquarters Docket
also contains a Support Document that includes EPA's responses to
comments.

C. What documents are available for review at the regional dockets?

    The Regional Dockets contain all the information in the
Headquarters Docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the
data principally relied upon by EPA in calculating or evaluating the
HRS score for the sites located in their Region. These reference
documents are available only in the Regional Dockets. For sites that
received comments during the comment period, the Regional Docket also
contains a Support Document that includes EPA's responses to comments.

D. How do I access the documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the
publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters
Docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for
hours.
    Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.; EPA West, Room
3334, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-0276.
    The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:

Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund
Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100,
Boston, MA 02109-3912 ; 617/918-1417.

Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway,
New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/
814-5364.
Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8862.
Evette Jones, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records
Center, Superfund Division SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-7572.
Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SF, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.
Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th
Street, Mailcode SUPRERNB, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335.
Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6484.
Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD-6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-
3219.
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue,
Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.

E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites?

    You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/status.htm or by contacting the
Superfund Docket (see contact information above).

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Additions to the NPL

    This final rule adds the following 15 sites to the NPL, all to the
General Superfund Section. All of the sites included in this final
rulemaking are being added to the NPL based on HRS scores of 28.50 or
above with the exceptions of North Ridge Estates (Klamath Falls, OR),
which is being added based on its designation as the state's top
priority, and Garfield Ground Water Contamination (Garfield, NJ), which
is being added based on ATSDR health advisory criteria (see further
discussion in Section C below). The sites are presented in the table
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     State                          Site name                                      City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA.............  Blue Ledge Mine...............................  Rogue River--Siskiyou National Forest.
CA.............  New Idria Mercury Mine........................  Idria.
GA.............  Armstrong World Industries....................  Macon.
IL.............  Sandoval Zinc Company.........................  Sandoval.
IN.............  Gary Development Company......................  Gary.
MS.............  Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp--Columbus............  Columbus.
MS.............  Red Panther Chemical Company..................  Clarksdale.
NC.............  Horton Iron and Metal.........................  Wilmington.
NJ.............  Garfield Ground Water Contamination...........  Garfield.
NM.............  Chevron Questa Mine...........................  Questa.
NY.............  New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water              New Cassel/Hicksville.
                  Contamination.
OR.............  North Ridge Estates...........................  Klamath Falls.
SC.............  US Finishing/Cone Mills.......................  Greenville.
TN.............  Alamo Contaminated Ground Water...............  Alamo.
TX.............  Falcon Refinery...............................  Ingleside.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Site Name Change

    The Chevron Questa Mine site in Questa, New Mexico, was proposed to
the NPL under a different name. The former name was MolyCorp Inc. (see
Proposed Rule at 76 FR 13113, March 10, 2011). EPA believes the new
name, Chevron Questa Mine, more accurately identifies the site (see
further discussion in Section C below).

C. What did EPA do with the public comments it received?

    EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule and
responded to all relevant comments. This rule adds 15 sites to the NPL.
    Six sites received no comments: Gary Development Landfill (IN)
(three comments were received which were unrelated to Gary Development
Landfill but erroneously were addressed to the Gary Development
Landfill docket number); Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp-Columbus (MS); Red
Panther Chemical Company (MS); US Finishing/Cone Mills (SC); Alamo
Contaminated Ground Water (TN); and North Ridge Estates (OR).
    Four sites being placed on the NPL received comments specifically
related to the HRS score and these are being addressed in response to
comment support documents available concurrent with this rule: Sandoval
Zinc Company (IL); Armstrong World Industries (GA); Horton Iron and
Metal (NC); and New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination (NY).
    The North Ridge Estates site was added to the NPL as a one-time
state designation of highest priority pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2).
In accordance with the Oregon Governor's designation letter dated
August 31, 2010, the site consists of areas affected by releases or
threatened releases of asbestos or other materials within the
approximately 422 acres of the North Ridge Estates site. These areas
include the former Marine Recuperation Barracks location and the
Kingsley Firing Range, identified respectively as Operable Units 1 and
2 (OU1 and OU2) in the Record of Decision (ROD) and other ongoing
investigations between EPA and the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), as referenced in the Governor's designation letter. As
discussed in Section I.F. of this Final Rule, however, the North Ridge
Estates site may not be limited to these areas or releases. As stated
by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, ``EPA may alter or expand the
boundaries of a NPL site if subsequent study reveals a wider-than-
expected scope of contamination.'' Washington State DOT v. EPA, 917
F.2d 1309, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (citing Eagle-Picher Indus. v. EPA,
822 F.2d 132, 144 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).
    Five sites received minimal comments: Falcon Refinery (TX); Blue
Ledge Mine (CA); New Idria Mercury Mine (CA); Garfield Ground Water
Contamination (NJ); and Chevron Questa Mine (NM). These sites are being
added to the NPL in this rule and

comments are addressed below. Falcon Refinery was proposed September 5,
2002 and the other sites were proposed March 10, 2011.
    EPA received no comments on the HRS score for the Falcon Refinery
site but did receive one comment requesting that EPA suspend the final
listing and allow the owner to perform the cleanup in accordance with
EPA guidance for Superfund Alternative Sites. EPA agreed to this and
entered into an agreement, leaving the site in proposed status since
2002. The owner has been approved by EPA to complete the RI/FS, but may
not have the funds to carry out further cleanup work, should that be
necessary (see information in docket for further information).
Therefore, EPA is adding the site to the NPL in order for any potential
cleanup activity to proceed in an expeditious manner. The work
performed to this point has not resulted in any change to the HRS score
at proposal.
    The Blue Ledge Mine site received one potential comment (which may
actually have been for the New Cassel/Hicksville site) supporting the
listing. If the comment was regarding the Blue Ledge site proposal, EPA
agrees the site should be listed so that it can be further investigated
and the EPA can determine what, if any, response actions are necessary.
    The Chevron Questa Mine site received 16 supporting comments and no
comments opposing listing. An additional comment was received from an
unrelated corporation named Molycorp, Inc., which was formed as a new
Delaware corporation in 2010 and has no connection to the previous
corporation named MolyCorp, Inc., or to the site being added to the NPL
today. The commenter requested that the site name be changed to a name
which does not include ``Molycorp'' to avoid confusion to the public
and prevent harm to the recently formed corporation due to a false
impression that it may have caused contamination of the site or be
responsible for the cleanup and remediation of the site. EPA agrees
with the commenter's concern, and has changed the name to Chevron
Questa Mine to clarify and more accurately identify the site for the
public.
    The Garfield Ground Water Contamination site received one comment.
The comment was related to another EPA Federal Register notice seeking
public input regarding whether the HRS should be amended to add a vapor
intrusion component. The comment said that EPA's ability to list the
Garfield site showed that addition of a vapor intrusion component to
the HRS was unnecessary. Since the comment was supportive of listing
the site, EPA is proceeding with adding the site to the NPL.
    The New Idria Mercury Mine site received five comments. Four
supported listing, including one comment that said mercury at the site
was bioavailable and a serious health concern, and cited several
studies to support these assertions. One commenter opposed listing,
claiming mercury at the site would not pose a problem and was not
bioavailable, and that cleanup was a waste of money. The comment did
not mention the HRS scoring. In response, the toxicity and
bioaccumulation values assigned to mercury in the documentation record
at proposal are consistent with the application of the HRS and no
commenter suggested any other values. The site score based on these
values makes the site eligible for listing. The HRS does not
specifically consider bioavailability. Cost is not a factor considered
when making a listing decision. Remedial costs, if any, will be
determined once the risk decision is made. Placing the site on the NPL
will enable EPA to evaluate whether the site poses a health risk,
whether the mercury is bioavailable, and what cleanup, if any, is
needed.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

1. What are Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563?
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
    Executive Order 13563, entitled ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,'' was issued on January 18, 2011, and supplements
Executive Order 12866 by outlining the President's regulatory strategy
to support continued economic growth and job creation, while protecting
the safety, health and rights of all Americans. The Executive Order
requires considering costs, reducing burdens on businesses and
consumers, expanding opportunities for public involvement, designing
flexible approaches, ensuring sound science forms the basis of
decisions, and retrospectively reviewing existing regulations.
2. Is this rule subject to Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order
13563 review?
    No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules,
are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this final rule?
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does
not contain any information collection requirements that require
approval of the OMB.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a

Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
2. How has EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not
establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet,
and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity,
small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of
hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under
CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site
is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this rule does not
impose any requirements on any small entities. For the foregoing
reasons, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule where a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
2. Does UMRA apply to this final rule?
    This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing
does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor
does listing require any action by a private party or determine
liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses
result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not
directly from the act of placing a site on the NPL. Thus, this rule is
not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As is mentioned
above, site listing does not impose any costs and would not require any
action of a small government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this final rule?
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it does not contain any
requirements applicable to States or other levels of government. Thus,
the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to this final
rule.
    EPA believes, however, that this final rule may be of significant
interest to State governments. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA therefore consulted with State
officials and/or representatives of State governments early in the
process of developing the rule to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input into its development. All sites included in this final
rule were referred to EPA by States for listing. For all sites in this
rule, EPA received letters

of support either from the Governor or a State official who was
delegated the authority by the Governor to speak on their behalf
regarding NPL listing decisions.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this final rule?
    This final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Listing a site
on the NPL does not impose any costs on a tribe or require a tribe to
take remedial action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this final rule?
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not
an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this rule present a
disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Usage

1. What Is Executive Order 13211?
    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), requires federal agencies to prepare a ``Statement of
Energy Effects'' when undertaking certain regulatory actions. A
Statement of Energy Effects describes the adverse effects of a
``significant energy action'' on energy supply, distribution and use,
reasonable alternatives to the action, and the expected effects of the
alternatives on energy supply, distribution and use.
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this final rule?
    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further,
we have concluded that this final rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy impacts because adding a site to the NPL does not
require an entity to conduct any action that would require energy use,
let alone that which would significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, or usage. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act apply to
this final rule?
    No. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

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

1. What is Executive Order 12898?
    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this rule?
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. As this rule does not impose any enforceable duty upon
State, tribal, or local governments, this rule will neither increase
nor decrease environmental protection.

K. Congressional Review Act

1. Has EPA submitted this rule to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office?
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, that includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA has submitted a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A ``major rule''
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

2. Could the effective date of this final rule change?
    Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of
CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation.
    Under the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a), before a rule can take effect the
federal agency promulgating the rule must submit a report to each House
of the Congress and to the Comptroller General. This report must
contain a copy of the rule, a concise general statement relating to the
rule (including whether it is a major rule), a copy of the cost-benefit
analysis of the rule (if any), the agency's actions relevant to
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (affecting small
businesses) and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (describing
unfunded federal requirements imposed on state and local governments
and the private sector), and any other relevant information or
requirements and any relevant Executive Orders.
    EPA has submitted a report under the CRA for this rule. The rule
will take effect, as provided by law, within 30 days of publication of
this document, since it is not a major rule. Section 804(2) defines a
major rule as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) finds has resulted in or is likely to result in: An
annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase
in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal,
State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and
export markets. NPL listing is not a major rule because, as explained
above, the listing, itself, imposes no monetary costs on any person. It
establishes no enforceable duties, does not establish that EPA
necessarily will undertake remedial action, nor does it require any
action by any party or determine liability for site response costs.
Costs that arise out of site responses result from site-by-site
decisions about what actions to take, not directly from the act of
listing itself. Section 801(a)(3) provides for a delay in the effective
date of major rules after this report is submitted.
3. What could cause a change in the effective date of this rule?
    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1) a rule shall not take effect, or continue
in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint
resolution of disapproval, described under section 802.
    Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA
section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations
promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S.
Ct. 2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington v.
EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cast the validity of the
legislative veto into question, EPA has transmitted a copy of this
regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives.
    If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305
calls the effective date of this regulation into question, EPA will
publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.

    Dated: September 8, 2011.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

    40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by adding the following
sites in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                                       Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                  Site name                          City/county                     Notes \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
CA..................  Blue Ledge Mine............  Rogue River--Siskiyou National Forest

                                                  * * * * * * *
CA..................  New Idria Mercury Mine.....  Idria

                                                  * * * * * * *
GA..................  Armstrong World Industries.  Macon

                                                  * * * * * * *
IL..................  Sandoval Zinc Company......  Sandoval

                                                  * * * * * * *
IN..................  Gary Development Company...  Gary

                                                  * * * * * * *
MS..................  Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp--   Columbus
                       Columbus.

                                                  * * * * * * *
MS..................  Red Panther Chemical         Clarksdale
                       Company.

                                                  * * * * * * *
NC..................  Horton Iron and Metal......  Wilmington

                                                  * * * * * * *
NJ..................  Garfield Ground Water        Garfield
                       Contamination.

                                                  * * * * * * *
NM..................  Chevron Questa Mine........  Questa

                                                  * * * * * * *
NY..................  New Cassel/Hicksville        New Cassel/Hicksville
                       Ground Water Contamination.

                                                  * * * * * * *
OR..................  North Ridge Estates........  Klamath Falls

                                                  * * * * * * *
SC..................  US Finishing/Cone Mills....  Greenville

                                                  * * * * * * *
TN..................  Alamo Contaminated Ground    Alamo
                       Water.

                                                  * * * * * * *
TX..................  Falcon Refinery............  Ingleside

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (HRS score need
  not be greater than or equal to 28.50).
C = Sites on Construction Completion list.
S = State top priority (HRS score need not be greater than or equal to 28.50).
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-23652 Filed 9-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79419-79420]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31937]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0058]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Office of Management and Budget,
Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Sean McLaurin, NVS-422, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room

W55-336, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. McLaurin's telephone number is (202) 366-
4800. Please identify the relevant collection of information by
referring to its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following information
collection was published on September 2, 2015 (80 FR 53225). The agency
received one comment that asked how this collection related to the
agency's mission and expressed concern over the lifetime of digital
information.
    The NDR's Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS) is a central
repository of information that identifies individuals whose license to
operate a motor vehicle has been denied, suspended or revoked for
cause, or who have been convicted of certain serious traffic related
violations. The information on the PDPS is reported to and maintained
by the States who are responsible to review information from PDPS and
to take adverse action as determined necessary against problem drivers.
While NHTSA operates the system to provide the information to the
States, the determination of whether or not to license an applicant
driver remains the responsibility of a State using the system. Upon
restoration of the driving privilege, the pointer records are removed
by the State-of-Record.
    Title: National Driver Register (NDR).
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0001.
    Type of Request: Extension of Clearance.
    Abstract: The purpose of the NDR is to assist States and other
authorized users in obtaining information about problem drivers. State
motor vehicle agencies submit and use the information for driver
licensing purposes. Other users obtain the information for
transportation safety purposes.
    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: The number of respondents is 51--
the fifty States and the District of Columbia.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,847.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

Terry Shelton,
Associate Administrator for the National Center for Statistics and
Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2015-31937 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P