[Federal Register: September 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 183)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48504-48511]
[DOCID:fr23se09-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0579, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0580, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-
0581, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0582, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0583, EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2009-0586, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0587, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0590, EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2009-0591; FRL-8961-5]
RIN 2050-AD75

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule No. 51

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before November 23, 2009.

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

                                                          Docket Identification Numbers by Site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Site name                                     City/county, state                                        Docket ID No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salt Chuck Mine.........................  Outer Ketchikan County, AK...............................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0579
Millsboro TCE...........................  Millsboro, DE............................................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0580
JJ Seifert Machine......................  Ruskin, FL...............................................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0581
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp--Jacksonville..  Jacksonville, FL.........................................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0582
Chemetco................................  Madison County, IL.......................................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0583
Gratiot County Golf Course..............  St. Louis, MI............................................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0586
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp--Navassa.......  Navassa, NC..............................................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0587
Black Butte Mine........................  Cottage Grove, OR........................................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0590
Van der Horst USA Corporation...........  Terrell, TX..............................................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0591
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket number,
by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket
Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA
Docket Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.;
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Express Mail: Send comments (no
facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding
Federal holidays).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the appropriate Docket number
(see table above). EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public Docket without change and may be made available
online at http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mail Code 5204P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone<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. Public Review/Public Comment
    A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule?
    B. How Do I Access the Documents?
    C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the
Headquarters Docket?
    D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the
Regional Dockets?
    E. How Do I Submit My Comments?
    F. What Happens to My Comments?
    G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments?
    H. May I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is
Over?
    I. May I View Public Comments Submitted by Others?
    J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed
to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
    2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866
Review?
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to this Proposed Rule?
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    1. What Is Executive Order 13132?
    2. Is Executive Order 13132 Applicable to This Proposed Rule?
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
    2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    1. What Is Executive Order 13045?
    2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to this Proposed Rule?
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
    Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    1. What Is Executive Order 12898?
    2. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to This Proposed Rule?

I. Background

A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?

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

B. What Is the NCP?

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

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

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix
B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B)
of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list
of ``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and

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

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS,
which EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The
HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of
uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a
threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR
51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to
CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four
pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a
matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the
HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B),
each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed
on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires
that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility
designated by each State as the greatest danger to public health,
welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State. This
mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2).
(3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score,
if all of the following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
     EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat
to public health.
     EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use
its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to
the release.
    EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?

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

F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?

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

boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time.
Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of
a release with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting information to the Agency at any
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.

G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?

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

H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are Cleaned
Up?

    In November 1995, EPA initiated a 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 (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund
accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority EPA places
on considering anticipated future land use as part of our remedy
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies
to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup
goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are
in place. EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out
remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the
environment, including current and future land users, in a manner that
allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and
economic vitality while ensuring protectiveness for current and future
land users. For further information, please go to http://www.epa.gov/
superfund/programs/recycle/tools/index.html.

II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule?

    Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring
of the sites in this rule are contained in public Dockets located both
at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, in the Regional offices and by
electronic access at http://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in
the ADDRESSES section above).

B. How Do I Access the Documents?

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

Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund
Records and Information Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023; 617/918-1417.
Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4343.
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.
Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records
Center, Superfund Division SMR-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/353-5821.
Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.
Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th
Street, Mailcode SUPRERNB, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335.
Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6463.
Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD-9-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-
3219.
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue,
Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.

    You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Regional
Dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request
under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure
for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note that due to
the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized maps may only
be viewed in-person; however, EPA dockets are not equipped to either
copy and mail out such maps

or scan them and send them out electronically.
    You may use the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters Docket (see instructions included in the
ADDRESSES section above). Please note that there are differences
between the Headquarters Docket and the Regional Dockets and those
differences are outlined below.

C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters
Docket?

    The Headquarters Docket for this rule contains the following for
the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; Documentation
Records describing the information used to compute the score;
information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements
or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the
Documentation Record.

D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional
Dockets?

    The Regional Dockets for this rule contain all of the information
in the Headquarters Docket, plus the actual reference documents
containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA in
calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference
documents are available only in the Regional Dockets.

E. How Do I Submit My Comments?

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

F. What Happens to My Comments?

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

G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments?

    Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the
specific information that EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (DC Cir. 1988)). EPA will
not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS or
other listing criteria. EPA will not address comments unless they
indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what
particular point in EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. May I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over?

    Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can only
guarantee that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close
of the formal comment period. EPA has a policy of generally not
delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration
of late comments.

I. May I View Public Comments Submitted by Others?

    During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
Docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional
Dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
    All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public
Docket at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without
change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Once in the public Dockets system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate Docket ID number.

J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the
NPL?

    In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA
concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and
comment will not generally be included in the Docket.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 State                           Site name                           City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK....................................  Salt Chuck Mine...........  Outer Ketchikan County.
DE....................................  Millsboro TCE.............  Millsboro.
FL....................................  JJ Seifert Machine........  Ruskin.
FL....................................  Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp--  Jacksonville.
                                         Jacksonville.
IL....................................  Chemetco..................  Madison County.
MI....................................  Gratiot County Golf Course  St. Louis.
NC....................................  Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp--  Navassa.
                                         Navassa.
OR....................................  Black Butte Mine..........  Cottage Grove.
TX....................................  Van der Horst USA           Terrell.
                                         Corporation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
    No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules,
are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does
not contain any information collection requirements that require
approval of the OMB.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule where a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small-government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Proposing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Proposal
does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor
does proposal require any action by a private party or determine
liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses
result from site-specific

decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of
proposing a site to be placed on the NPL. Thus, this rule is not
subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As is mentioned
above, site proposal does not impose any costs and would not require
any action of a small government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy impacts because proposing
a site to the NPL does not require an entity to conduct any action that
would require energy use, let alone that which would significantly
affect energy supply, distribution, or usage. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

1. What is Executive Order 12898?
    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of
their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
2. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to This Rule?
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. As this rule does not impose any enforceable duty upon
State, tribal or local governments, this rule will neither increase nor
decrease environmental protection.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

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

    Dated: September 17, 2009.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. E9-22936 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 66637]
[DOCID:fr16de09-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD10-3-000; Docket Nos. CP07-441-000; Docket No. CP09-433-
000; Docket No. CP09-17-000; Docket No. AC08-161-000; Docket No. CP08-
6-005; Docket No. CP09-56-000; Docket No. CP09-36-002; Docket No. CP09-
40-001; Docket No. CP09-54-001; Docket No. CP09-68-000]

Accrual of Allowance for Funds Used During Construction: Pacific
Connector Gas Pipeline, LP; Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC; Florida
Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC;
Southern Natural Gas Company; Southeast Supply Header, LLC/Southern
Natural Gas Company; Ruby Pipeline, LLC; Texas Eastern Transmission,
LP; Supplemental Notice on Technical Conference on Commission Policy on
Commencement of Accrual of Allowance for Funds Used During Construction

December 9, 2009.
    The December 2, 2009 notice of a technical conference to address
the accrual of allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC)
specified several recent and pending proceedings in which the issue of
the accrual of AFDUC is raised. This issue is raised in two additional
pending proceedings: Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC in Docket No.
CP09-433-000 and Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC in Docket Nos. CP08-
6-005 and Docket No. CP09-56-000. Accordingly, these two cases will be
included with those previously specified as a subject of the technical
conference to be held on Tuesday, December 15, 2009, from 9 a.m. until
1 p.m., in the Commission Meeting Room, at the Commission's offices at
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29915 Filed 12-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 82 (Thursday, April 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 23854]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Dubois Regional Airport, Reynoldsville, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the Dubois Regional Airport, Reynoldsville,
Pennsylvania under the provisions of Section 47125(a) of Title 49
United States Code (U.S.C.).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the following address: Robert W. Shaffer, Manager, Dubois Regional
Airport, 377 Aviation Way, Reynoldsville, PA 15851; and at the FAA
Harrisburg Airports District Office: Lori K. Pagnanelli, Manager,
Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale Dr., Suite 508,
Camp Hill, PA 17011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Ledebohm, Community Planner,
Harrisburg Airports District Office location listed above.
    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the Dubois Regional Airport under the
provisions of Section 47125(a) of Title 49 U.S.C. On April 20, 2011,
the FAA determined that the request to release property at the Dubois
Regional Airport (DUJ), Pennsylvania submitted by the Clearfield-
Jefferson Counties Regional Airport Authority (Authority) met the
procedural requirements.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Authority requests the release of real property totaling 5.01
acres, of non-aeronautical airport property to AVERA Companies of
Houston, TX. The land was originally purchased with Federal funds in
1988, AIP Grant 3-42-0023-05-88. The undeveloped property is located on
the southeast corner within the Air Commerce Park, which is directly
north of the main DuBois Regional Airport parking lot. AVERA Companies
is proposing to develop the property and erect a building. The subject
land does not serve an aeronautical purpose and is not needed for
airport development, as shown on the Airport Layout Plan. All proceeds
from the sale of property are to be used for the capital development of
the airport. Fair Market Value (FMV) will be obtained from the land
sale and reinvested back into an AIP eligible project at the airport.
    Any person may inspect the request by appointment at the FAA office
address listed above. Interested persons are invited to comment on the
proposed release from obligations. All comments will be considered by
the FAA to the extent practicable.

    Issued in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, on April 20, 2011.
Lori K. Pagnanelli,
Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2011-10236 Filed 4-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 49 (Thursday, March 12, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14416-14417]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05190]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 744 and 762

[Docket No.<PHONE_NUMBER>]
RIN 0694-AH97

Temporary General License: Extension of Validity

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Government has decided to extend through May 15,
2020, the temporary general license to Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
(Huawei) and one hundred and fourteen of its non-U.S. affiliates on the
Entity List. In order to implement this decision, this final rule
revises the temporary general license to remove the expiration date of
April 1, 2020, and substitutes the date of May 15, 2020. In this same
issue, BIS is publishing a notification of inquiry titled, Request for
Comments on Future Extensions of Temporary General License (TGL),
requesting comments on future extensions of a temporary general license
under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).

DATES: This rule is effective March 10, 2020, through May 15, 2020. The
expiration date of the final rule published on February 18, 2020 (85 FR
8722), is extended until May 15, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director, Office of Exporter Services,
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (949)
660-0144 or<PHONE_NUMBER> or email your inquiry to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    As published on May 22, 2019 (84 FR 23468), extended and amended
through a final rule published on August 21, 2019 (84 FR 43487), and as
currently extended through a final rule published on February 18, 2020
(85 FR 8722), this temporary general license authorizes certain
activities, including those necessary for the continued operations of
existing networks and equipment as well as the support of existing
mobile services, including cybersecurity research critical to
maintaining the integrity and reliability of existing and fully
operational networks and equipment. Exporters, reexporters, and
transferors are required to maintain certifications and other records,
to be made available when requested by BIS, regarding their use of the
temporary general license.
    As published on May 22, 2019 (84 FR 22961), and as revised and
clarified by a final rule published on August 21, 2019 (84 FR 43493),
any exports, reexports, or in-country transfers of items subject to the
EAR to any of the listed Huawei entities as of the effective date they
were added to the Entity List continue to require a license, with the
exception of transactions explicitly authorized by the temporary
general license and eligible for export, reexport, or transfer (in-
country) prior to May 16, 2019 without a license or under a license
exception. License applications will continue to be reviewed under a
presumption of denial, as stated in the Entity List entries for the
listed Huawei entities. No persons are relieved of other obligations
under the EAR, including

but not limited to licensing requirements to the People's Republic of
China (PRC or China) or other destinations and the requirements of part
744 of the EAR. The temporary general license also does not authorize
any activities or transactions involving Country Group E countries
(i.e., Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria) or foreign nationals.

Extension of Validity

    At this time, the U.S. Government has decided to extend the
temporary general license until May 15, 2020. In order to implement
this U.S. Government decision, this final rule revises the temporary
general license to remove the date of April 1, 2020 and substitutes the
date of May 15, 2020 in three places in Supplement No. 7 to part 744:
The introductory text; paragraph (b)(1); and paragraph (c).

Export Control Reform Act of 2018

    On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S.
McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which
included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-
4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities
and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule. As set
forth in Section 1768 of ECRA, all delegations, rules, regulations,
orders, determinations, licenses, or other forms of administrative
action that were made, issued, conducted, or allowed to become
effective under the Export Administration Act of 1979 (previously, 50
U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) (as in effect prior to August 13, 2018 and as
continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)) or the Export Administration
Regulations, and were in effect as of August 13, 2018, shall continue
in effect according to their terms until modified, superseded, set
aside, or revoked under the authority of ECRA.

Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 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). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866. This rule is not an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is
required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless
that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves
collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088,
Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among
other things, license applications, and carries a burden estimate of
42.5 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours
associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not
expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments
regarding the collection of information associated with this rule,
including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications
as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    4. Pursuant to section 1762 of ECRA, this action is exempt from the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of
proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in
effective date.
    5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for
public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C.
553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., are not applicable.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none
has been prepared.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744 and 762

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15
CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:

PART 744--[AMENDED]

0
 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22
U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR,
1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p.
608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 13026,
61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3
CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp.,
p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice
of September 19, 2019, 83 FR 49633 (September 20, 2019); Notice of
November 12, 2019, 84 FR 61817 (November 13, 2019).

0
2. Supplement No. 7 to part 744 is amended by revising the first
sentence of the introductory text, paragraph (b)(1), and paragraph (c)
introductory text to read as follows:

Supplement No. 7 to Part 744--Temporary General License

    Notwithstanding the requirements and other provisions of Supplement
No. 4 to this part, which became effective as to Huawei Technologies
Co., Ltd. (Huawei), Shenzhen, Guangdong, China on May 16, 2019, and its
non-U.S. affiliates listed in Supplement No. 4 to this part on, as
applicable, May 16, 2019 or August 19, 2019, the licensing and other
requirements in the EAR as of May 15, 2019, are restored in part as of
May 20, 2019, and through May 15, 2020, pertaining to exports,
reexports, and transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR to
any of the listed Huawei entities. * * *
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) This temporary general license is effective from May 20, 2019,
through May 15, 2020.
* * * * *
    (c) Authorized transactions. This temporary general license allows,
from May 20, 2019, through May 15, 2020, the following:
* * * * *

    Dated: March 10, 2020.
Richard E. Ashooh,
Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2020-05190 Filed 3-10-20; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 3510-33-P