[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60357-60358]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23825]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70496; File No. SR-ICC-2013-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Provide for the Clearance of Standard
Emerging European and Middle Eastern Sovereign Single Names

September 25, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 17, 2013, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by ICC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of proposed rule change is to adopt rules that will
provide the basis for ICC to clear additional credit default swap
contracts. Specifically, ICC is proposing to amend Section 26D of its
Rules to provide for the clearance of additional Standard Emerging
Sovereign Single Name constituents of the CDX Emerging Markets Index
(``SES Contracts''). Currently, ICC clears four Standard Latin America
Sovereign Single Name constituents of the CDX Emerging Markets Index.
The proposed changes to the ICC Rules would provide for the clearance
of Standard Emerging European and Middle Eastern Sovereign Single Name
constituents of the CDX Emerging Markets Index, specifically the
Republic of Turkey and the Russian Federation (the ``SEEME
Contracts'').

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    ICC currently clears four Standard Latin America Sovereign SES
Contracts. The addition of the SEEME Contracts will allow market
participants an increased ability to manage risk. ICC believes that
clearance of the SEEME Contracts will facilitate the prompt and
accurate settlement of security-based swaps and contribute to the
safeguarding of securities and funds associated with security-based
swap transactions. ICC is requesting approval for SEEME Contracts on
two sovereign reference entities, the Republic of Turkey and the
Russian Federation.
    SEEME Contracts have similar terms to the Standard Latin America

Sovereign Single Name constituents of the CDX Emerging Markets Index
currently cleared by ICC and governed by Section 26D of the ICC rules.
Accordingly, the proposed changes to Section 26D of the ICC rules
include the addition of ``Standard Emerging European and Middle Eastern
Sovereign'' as a Transaction Type for SES Contracts and the addition of
the European Region as the CDS Region for SEEME Contracts.
    Rule 26D-102 is modified to indicate the specific Eligible SES
Reference Entities to be cleared by ICC, namely the Federative Republic
of Brazil, the United Mexican States, the Bolivian Republic of
Venezuela, the Argentine Republic, the Republic of Turkey and the
Russian Federation.
    Rules 26D-303 (SES Contract Adjustments) and 26D-315 (Terms of the
Cleared SES Contract) are modified to incorporate SEEME Contracts as a
Transaction Type for SES Contracts.
    Rule 26D-309 is modified to state specifically that ICC will not
accept a trade for clearance and settlement if at the time of
submission or acceptance of the trade or at the time of novation the
CDS Participant submitting the trade is domiciled in the country of the
Eligible SES Reference Entity for such SES Contract.
    Rule 26D-315(b) is also modified to indicate that for purposes of
the CDS Committee Rules, for SEEME Contracts the CDS Region is the
European Region.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \3\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions. ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular, to Section 17(A)(b)(3)(F),
because ICC believes that the clearance of SEEME Contracts will
facilitate the prompt and accurate settlement of securities,
specifically security-based swaps, and contribute to the safeguarding
of securities and funds associated with security-based swap
transactions in ICC's custody or control, or for which ICC is
responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    SEEME Contracts will be available to all ICC Participants for
clearing. The clearing of SEEME Contracts by ICC does not preclude the
offering of SEEME Contracts for clearing by other market participants.
Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2013-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2013-07. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit
and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/notices/Notices.shtml?regulatoryFilings.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2013-07
and should be submitted on or before October 22, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23825 Filed 9-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44825-44827]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16331]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0077]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Daytona Beach Wings and Waves Air Show; Atlantic
Ocean, Daytona Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the
waters of the Atlantic Ocean east of Daytona Beach, Florida during the
Daytona Beach Wings and Waves Air Show. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on the navigable waters surrounding the
event. This safety zone will be enforced daily 11 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
from October 6 through October 9, 2016. This proposed rulemaking would
prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville or a
designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before August 10, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0077 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Allan Storm, Sector
Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On December 15, 2015, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University/David
Schultz Airshows LLC submitted a marine event application to the Coast
Guard for the Daytona Beach Wings and Waves Air Show that will take
place from October 6 through 9, 2016. The air show will consist of
various flight demonstrations over the Atlantic Ocean, just offshore
from Daytona Beach, FL. Over the years, there have been unfortunate
instances of aircraft mishaps that involve crashing during performances
at various air shows around the world. Occasionally, these incidents
result in a wide area of scattered debris in the water that can damage
property or cause significant injury or death to the public observing

the air shows from the water. The Captain of the Port (COTP)
Jacksonville has determined that a safety zone is necessary to protect
the general public from hazards associated with aerial flight
demonstrations.
    The purpose of the rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and persons during the air show on the navigable waters of the Atlantic
Ocean in Daytona Beach, FL. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking
under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 11 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. on October 6 through October 9, 2016. The safety zone will
encompass all waters within an area approximately two nautical miles
parallel to the shoreline, and one half nautical mile out into the
Atlantic Ocean offshore from Daytona Beach, Florida. The duration of
the zone is intended to ensure the safety of the public and these
navigable waters during the aerial flight demonstrations. No vessel or
person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory
text the Coast Guard is proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
would be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would
impact a small designated area of the Atlantic Ocean for five and a
half hours on each of the four days the air show is occurring.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a broadcast notice to mariners
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone that would prohibit persons and vessels from transiting through a
one square nautical mile regulated area during a four day air show
lasting five and a half hours daily. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T07-0077 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0077  Safety Zone; Daytona Beach Wings and Waves Air
Show, Atlantic Ocean, Daytona Beach, FL.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following regulated area is a safety zone
located offshore from Daytona Beach, FL. All waters of the Atlantic
Ocean encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following
points: Starting at Point 1 in position 29[deg]14'44.72'' N.,
081[deg]0'46.90'' W.; thence northeast to Point 2 in position
29[deg]14'58.74'' N., 081[deg]0'16.18'' W.; thence southeast to Point 3
in position 29[deg]13'3.80'' N., 080[deg]59'21.78'' W.; thence
southwest to Point 4 in position 29[deg]12'54.63'' N.,
080[deg]59'53.87'' W.; thence northwest back to origin. These
coordinates are based on North American Datum 1983.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Jacksonville in the enforcement of the regulated
area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Jacksonville or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Jacksonville by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16, to request
authorization. If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels
receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the
COTP Jacksonville or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area
through Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM channel 16 or by on-
scene designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced daily 11 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. from October 6 through October 9, 2016.

    Dated: June 27, 2016.
J.F. Dixon,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
[FR Doc. 2016-16331 Filed 7-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Addendum: An Assessment of

Environmental Problems Associated with Recycling of

Hazardous Secondary Materials

July 14, 2008

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste

DISCLAIMER

Mention of trade names, products or services in this document does not
convey, and should not be interpreted to convey, official EPA approval,
endorsement, or recommendation, or lack thereof.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This addendum was funded and managed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Data collection and presentation were conducted by
ICF Environmental Consulting, Inc. under contract to the Environmental
Protection Agency.

Staff members of the Resource Conservation and Recycling Branch, Office
of Solid Waste, EPA Headquarters were responsible for providing
objectives of the addendum, reviewing the methodology, helping to
identify cases for further investigation, reviewing draft writeups and
drafting portions of the study. The EPA Work Assignment Managers were
David Eberly and Amy Lile. Amy Lile and Tracy Atagi were key
contributors and reviewers.

EPA was responsible for identifying potential cases, including those
submitted through public comment as a part the Definition of Solid Waste
Rulemaking process. Staff of ICF Environmental Consulting, Inc. were
responsible for investigating potential cases, assembling relevant
information, contacting persons with knowledge of selected cases,
drafting descriptions of each case, and compiling summary statistics.
EPA wishes to acknowledge the contributions made by ICF staff members
Stephanie Barrett (Research Manager) and Jennifer Brickett, and the
contributions made by Jenny Phillips while working in EPA’s Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance under the Student Career Experience
Program.

Addendum: An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with

Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials

I. Introduction

An Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with Recycling of
Hazardous Secondary Materials (also know as the “environmental
problems study” or “study”) was conducted as part of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s effort to revise the current
“definition of solid waste” under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), as it pertains to recycling of hazardous wastes and
other hazardous secondary materials. The information in this study is
expected to assist the Agency in making decisions as to the scope and
substance of these regulatory revisions.

In an October 28, 2003 Federal Register notice, EPA proposed to revise
the definition of solid waste by excluding from regulation hazardous
secondary materials that are “generated and reclaimed in a continuous
process within the same industry.” See 68 FR 61558, October 28, 2003.
That regulatory proposal resulted in more than two hundred comments
being submitted to the Agency, from a wide range of stakeholders. In
general, the commenters’ reactions to the proposal were less than
favorable, for various reasons, and many commenters suggested
alternative approaches to resolving issues associated with the current
definition of solid waste.

A number of commenters to the 2003 proposal criticized the Agency
specifically for not having conducted a thorough study of the potential
impacts of these regulatory changes. These commenters expressed the
general concern that de-regulating hazardous recyclable materials in the
manner proposed could result in mismanagement of materials, and thus
could create new cases of environmental damage that would require
remedial action under federal or state authorities. Some of the
commenters further cited a number of examples of environmental damage
cases that were attributed to hazardous material recycling, including a
number of sites listed on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).

In deliberating as to how to proceed with this rulemaking effort, the
Agency decided that additional data on recycling damage cases, as well
as data on successful, environmentally beneficial recycling practices,
would benefit the regulatory decision process, and would provide
stakeholders with a clearer picture of the hazardous material recycling
industry in this country. Accordingly, EPA chose to conduct these
recycling studies, and consider their findings, before making decisions
as to the appropriate direction for this rulemaking. This study
documents the findings of the Agency’s study of environmental problems
that have been associated with hazardous material recycling. A separate
study entitled "An Assessment of Current Good Practices for Recycling of
Hazardous Secondary Materials" documents current good practices for
recycling of hazardous secondary materials, and is also part of the
administrative record for this rulemaking effort. In addition, a study
of the economics of hazardous material recycling, entitled "Potential
Effects of Market Forces on the Management of Hazardous Recyclable
Materials” is part of the record.

II. Scope of the Study

The general goal of this study was to identify and characterize cases of
environmental damage that have been attributed to some type of hazardous
material recycling activity, and that

are relevant for the purpose of this rulemaking effort. Specifically, we
sought to identify the following types of cases:

Cases where environmental damage can be attributed to some type of
recycling activity. In conducting this study, we wished to identify
damage cases in which environmental damages were caused by some type of
recycling-related activity. In this context, “recycling-related
activities” included accumulation or storage of materials by the
generator, the recycler or an intermediary, illegal disposal or
abandonment of recyclable materials or recycling residuals,
transportation of recyclable materials, “sham” recycling operations
(i.e., illegal disposal or treatment disguised as recycling), production
and/or use of contaminated products from recycled materials, reclamation
and/or production processes, management of residuals from reclamation or
production processes, or other activities associated with the management
of recyclable materials, recycling residuals, or the products of
recycling processes.

This study did identify a number of cleanup sites at which a recycling
process had operated, but where other sources of contamination made it
extremely difficult to determine with any certainty that the recycling
activity contributed to the environmental problems at the site. These
cases were not included in our compilation of damage cases.

Relatively recent cases. Many of the damage cases that were examined in
the course of this study occurred before RCRA, CERCLA or other
environmental programs were established in the early 1980s. As a number
of commenters on the 2003 proposed rule noted, these environmental
programs – most notably, the liability provisions of CERCLA – have
created strong incentives for proper management of recyclable materials
and recycling residuals. Several commenters further noted that because
of these developments, industrial recycling practices have changed
substantially since the early 1980s, and present day generators and
recyclers are much better environmental stewards than in the
pre-RCRA/CERCLA era. Thus, they argue, “historical”
recycling-related damage cases are not particularly relevant or
instructive with regard to modifying the current RCRA regulations for
hazardous material recycling. The Agency generally agrees with this
viewpoint, in part because our companion study of current good hazardous
material recycling practices has documented that responsible generators
and recyclers do make considerable efforts to ensure that materials are
recycled and otherwise managed in a safe, environmentally protective
manner.

In the course of this study it became apparent that while the CERCLA
statute and the initial RCRA hazardous waste regulations became
effective in 1980, there was an initial “phase in” period during
which industry and other affected entities began to change their
practices with regard to hazardous material recycling, and during which
federal and state agencies were developing guidelines and procedures for
implementing these new authorities. Perhaps not surprisingly, our study
identified a number of recycling damage cases that occurred during the
early 1980s that appeared to have been caused by companies and
individuals who were not cognizant of their new responsibilities and
potential liabilities under RCRA and CERCLA. Because we believe that
recycling damage cases that have occurred within the current
environmental regulatory and liability systems are most relevant to the
definition of solid waste rulemaking effort, our study identified and
described only those cases in which some form of environmental damage
appears to have occurred during or after the year 1982. We did not
however, exclude cases where damages occurred both before and after
1982.

Cases involving recycling of regulated hazardous wastes, or hazardous
secondary materials that are specifically excluded from RCRA regulation.
This study was intended to identify damage cases associated with
recycling of regulated hazardous wastes, as well as cases involving
recycling of hazardous materials that are not regulated because they are
subject to a specific regulatory exemption or exclusion (see, for
example, the exclusions in 40 CFR 261.4). The Agency is interested in
these types of damage cases because they may indicate the extent to
which environmental damages can occur even when recycling is conducted
under a stringent regulatory regime, and whether such damages may be
more or less prevalent for materials that are explicitly exempted or
excluded from RCRA regulatory controls. The study was not designed to
identify cases involving recycling of non-hazardous materials such as
paper, glass, rubber or plastics.

III. Methodology

The initial task of this study was to identify recycling-related
environmental damage cases that were relevant to the scope and purpose
of the study (the preceding section of this study describes the types of
cases that were considered relevant to the study). Potential cases were
identified from a variety of sources, including:

Comments on the October 28, 2003 proposed rule

The Superfund National Priorities List

National EPA data bases maintained for the CERCLA, RCRA and enforcement
programs

Contacts with staff in state environmental agencies

Contacts with staff in EPA Regional Offices

State agency data bases maintained for state superfund programs and
other environmental programs

Internet searches

News media reports

It should be noted that because of time and resource limitations, the
search for potentially relevant damage cases was not exhaustive. For
example, we did not systematically survey all state environmental
agencies for relevant cases, nor did we search paper files in EPA
Regional Offices. Because of these limitations, we believe that the
cases we have identified and described in the 2007 environmental
problems study in effect represent the cases that were relatively easy
to find, and that there are likely to be a significant number of
additional relevant cases that we did not identify.

Once a potentially relevant case was identified, EPA’s contractor
personnel assembled relevant information to determine whether or not the
case fit within the scope of the study. If the damage case was
considered a likely candidate for the study, further information was
gathered with the intent of identifying certain key facts about the case
that the Agency believed would be particularly informative for the
purpose of this rulemaking. These key facts included:

Name, location and EPA Identification Number (if available) of the site

Types of materials that were recycled, or intended to be recycled

The government program responsible for overseeing the cleanup of the
site, and whether or not the site is or was listed on the Superfund
National Priorities List (NPL)

Brief description of the site

Basic site history, including when the recycling occurred, and when the
environmental damage occurred

Basic description of the recycling process

The type(s) of environmental damage that occurred

The types of activities or circumstances that caused the environmental
damage

Whether or not human health impacts, including deaths, were associated
with the damage

Whether or not those responsible for the environmental or human health
impacts were prosecuted for criminal violations

Whether the materials were recycled on-site (i.e., at the generating
facility) or at an offsite recycling facility

Whether or not the recycler went bankrupt or otherwise went out of
business

Whether or not the recycling facility had a RCRA Part B permit for
managing hazardous wastes

Cost of cleaning up the site

Other information that could help identify why the environmental damage
occurred

Many of the cases that were investigated were well documented, and we
were able to assemble virtually all of this information. This was the
case, for example, for many of the Superfund NPL sites. However, in many
other cases it was not possible given the limitations of the study to
document all of these facts. Often, there was considerable technical
information as to the nature and extent of the contamination at the
site, but relatively little information regarding the activities and
circumstances that originally caused it. For some of the sites, we were
able to collect only very basic information.

For each of the 208 cases that fit within the scope of the 2007
environmental problems study, a written description was prepared, and
key data for each site (as available) were entered into a summary table.
The summary table is presented as Appendix I of the study, and is
organized alphabetically by State. Appendix II contains each of the 208
case descriptions, organized in the same way. Appendix III is a listing
of the damage cases that were reviewed but were not investigated in
detail, either because they did not fit within the scope of the study,
or because there was insufficient information to make that
determination.

IV. Summary of Addendum Appendices

	In 2007, EPA published a supplemental proposal for the Definition of
Solid Waste Rulemaking, which included supporting studies and analyses,
such as the environmental problems study. See 72 FR 14172, March 27,
2007 to review the proposal, and EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0031-0355 to review
the study. We received many public comments in response to the March
2007 supplemental proposal and some commenters referenced information
from the environmental problems study in order to support their
positions.

In consideration of comments, we conducted additional analyses and are
publishing the work in this addendum to the study and its three
appendices. Appendix I contains information about additional damage
cases for the environmental problems study, while Appendix II lists
additional sites considered for the study, but not included in it.
Lastly, Appendix III is an analysis of recycling damage case facilities
that are also intermediate facilities. Each of these appendices is
described in more detail below.

Appendix I: Additional Damage Cases from Recycling of Hazardous
Secondary Materials

A. Background

When publishing the environmental problems study with the March 2007
supplemental proposal, we requested additional information on relevant
examples of environmental problems related to recycling of hazardous
secondary material that we had not previously identified. Also, we
specified the type of information that is most useful to EPA. A few
commenters suggested the review of additional, potential damage cases.

In addition, a few commenters responded that the study does not support
controls on land-based storage of hazardous secondary materials at
mining and mineral processing facilities. They cited that only 1 of the
208 damage cases is associated with a primary mineral processing
facility. Thus, the commenters argued that the small number of
environmental problems stemming from recycling at mining and mineral
processing facilities does not warrant the regulatory oversight of the
industry described in the March 2007 supplemental proposal.

B. Methodology

The additional, potential damage cases that we reviewed were identified
through public comments on the March 2007 supplemental proposal,
publicly available EPA documents, and media reports.

In reviewing the cases, EPA maintained the scope of the original
environmental problems study as described above in section II. Scope
(i.e., environmental damage is attributed to some type of recycling
activity, and cases are relatively recent and involve recycling of
regulated hazardous wastes, or hazardous secondary materials that are
specifically excluded from RCRA regulation). Our contractor personnel
also employed the same methodology for developing key facts about
additional damage cases as was used for the study and is described above
in section III. Methodology.

C. Summary

Based on our analysis of additional, potential cases, we have added ten
new damage case sites to the study and updated three existing damage
case profiles (from the 2007 study) with more information about
environmental problems. We concluded that the new damage cases and the
supplemental information added to existing cases are consistent with the
damage cases previously cited in the study; therefore, the additional
facts do not substantially change our understanding of hazardous
secondary materials recycling damage cases.

We believe that the study reflects the risk and problems involved with
recycling hazardous secondary materials and that the environmental
problems highlighted in the study demonstrate the need to promulgate
restrictions and conditions for the exclusions from the RCRA Definition
of Solid Waste (e.g., requirements for financial assurance, reasonable
efforts, shipping documentation, hazardous secondary materials
management, and speculative accumulation). EPA maintains that the
restrictions and conditions finalized with the exclusions will address
the problems identified in the study and will limit the exclusions to
materials that EPA has determined are not discarded. EPA also believes
that generators should assess whether reclamation facilities adequately
manage hazardous secondary materials in order to mitigate the risk of
future environmental problems. Consequently, we are finalizing the
reasonable efforts condition for the transfer-based exclusion.

EPA acknowledges that the 2007 environmental problems study included one
damage case from primary mineral processing and two damage cases from
secondary mineral processing. We note that whether an industry has a
single damage case represented in the study or numerous damage cases,
all industries are treated equally within the final rulemaking for
hazardous secondary materials generated, reclaimed, and managed in
land-based units (40 CFR 261.4(a)(23)). Moreover, four of the ten new
damage case profiles are from primary and secondary mineral processing
facilities, which corroborates EPA's view that the findings from the
environmental problems study apply across industries, including the
mining and mineral processing industries. Of the four additional damage
cases, three are primary mineral processing facilities and one is a
secondary mineral processing facility.

We have concluded that these additional damage cases do not
substantially change the overall picture of environmental problems
caused by hazardous secondary materials recycling activities at mining
and mineral processing facilities. EPA believes restrictions on
land-based storage units are supported by the environmental problems
study. Cumulative damage causes from the study support the restrictions
imposed by 40 CFR 261.4(a)(23) and the identification of additional
mining and mineral processing damage cases corroborates EPA's finding
that no industry should be exempt from restrictions and/or conditions
due to the limited number of damage case profiles exhibited in the
environmental problems study.

	A summary of additional damage cases and individual profiles are
located in the Addendum’s Appendix I.

Appendix II: Additional Sites Considered But Not Included in the Damage
Case Analysis

A. Background

See section A. Background, Appendix I (above).

B. Methodology

See section B. Methodology, Appendix I (above).

C. Summary

EPA identified and reviewed eleven additional, potential damage cases,
but decided they would not be included in the environmental problems
study for various reasons. For example, we determined that two cases
identified in the public comments are already included in the 2007 study
and additional information was not revealed to supplement the profiles.
We also determined that one case from public comments was considered for
the 2007 study, but not included because the damage was deemed unrelated
to recycling and no additional information was exposed to change this
conclusion. Eight other new sites, including one identified in the
public comments, were determined to have environmental damage unrelated
to recycling or the information was insufficient to determine whether
the case should be included in the study. The Addendum’s Appendix II
contains a summary of sites considered but not included in the study.

This review and determination process is consistent with our work
related to the 2007 study, which excluded many sites because damage was
pre-RCRA or unrelated to recycling, there was no damage identified, and
the information available was insufficient to determine the site met the
scope of the study. See the 2007 study’s Appendix III: Additional
Sites Considered but not Included in the Damage Case Analysis.

Appendix III: Analysis of Recycling Damage Case Facilities that Are Also
Intermediate Facilities

A. Background

	In the March 2007 supplemental proposal, EPA proposed that the
hazardous secondary material must be transferred directly from the
generator to the reclaimer and not be handled by anyone else other than
a transporter. Thus, as proposed, a generator that wished to maintain
the excluded status of its hazardous secondary materials would not be
able to ship those materials to a middleman, such as a broker. We said
that we believed that a generator who ships materials to a middleman,
such as a broker typically does not know who will ultimately manage and
reclaim them, or how they will be reclaimed (72 FR 14189). However, we
requested comment on allowing middlemen to participate in the exclusion.

	Comments on the supplemental proposal disputed the assumption that a
generator does not know the final destination when shipping to an
intermediate facility, saying that in certain cases the generator works
with an intermediate facility to choose the reclamation facility and the
final destination is arranged by contract before the hazardous secondary
materials are shipped. Commenters also asserted that such arrangements
allow for consolidation of shipments, making recycling economical for
small businesses that generate hazardous secondary materials.

In consideration of comments, EPA’s contractor personnel analyzed the
profiles from the 2007 environmental problems study to identify whether
any damage cases represented intermediate facilities. An intermediate
facility is defined as any facility that did not generate or recycle the
hazardous secondary material (such as a transfer facility).

B. Methodology

The analysis relied on two data sources to identify intermediate
facilities. First, a list of RCRA ID numbers from the environmental
problems study was compared to RCRA Biennial Report (BR) Data from
1989-2005 to identify intermediate facilities. For this analysis,
intermediate facilities met one of the following conditions:

Had at least one stream in the generation and management (GM) form with
source code G61. Source Code G61 is described as “Hazardous waste
received from off site for storage/bulking and transfer off site for
treatment or disposal.”

Had at least one stream in the waste received (WR) form with management
method code H141.  Management method code H141 is described as “The
site receiving this waste stored/bulked and transported the waste with
no treatment or recovery (H010-H129), fuel blending (H061), or disposal
(H131-H135) at that receiving site.”

Each intermediate facility identified from the BR data is indicated with
a “Yes” in the Addendum’s Appendix III in the table column titled
“BR Indicates Intermediate Facility.”

Second, additional intermediate facilities were identified by reviewing
the damage case profiles in the 2007 environmental problems study.
Profiles were searched for key words describing intermediate facilities,
such as “transfer”, “offsite” or “off site”,
“consolidate” (or other variations of the word), and
“intermediate.” Then the profiles were reviewed to verify that the
descriptions did in fact describe intermediate facilities.

For each intermediate facility identified from damage case profiles, a
relevant excerpt of the site description was placed in the Addendum’s
Appendix III in the table column titled “Damage Case Text Indicates
Intermediate Facility.”

C. Summary

The analysis identified a total of 45 intermediate facilities out of 208
included in the 2007 environmental problems study. The Addendum’s
Appendix III includes a table of these intermediate facilities.

In light of this analysis, and conditions and requirements that would
apply to intermediate facilities and generators transferring hazardous
secondary materials using intermediate facilities, EPA agrees with the
comments that some types of intermediate facilities could participate in
the transfer-based exclusion from the RCRA Definition of Solid Waste as
provided by the final rulemaking. However, to limit the transfer-based
exclusion to those intermediate facilities where discard will not occur,
the hazardous secondary material generator must make contractual
arrangements with the intermediate facility to ensure that the hazardous
secondary material is sent on to the reclamation facility or facilities
identified by the generator. The generator also must perform reasonable
efforts on the intermediate facility, as well as on the reclamation
facility.

In addition, an intermediate facility must meet the same conditions as a
reclamation facility for the same reasons the reclamation facility must
meet them, i.e., hazardous secondary material received at any facility
must not be discarded. Of the 208 damage cases in the 2007 environmental
problems study, 45 (22%) were from intermediate facilities. Therefore,
EPA believes the record for requiring the conditions for the reclamation
facility also supports promulgation of the same conditions for
intermediate facilities (e.g. financial assurance, performance-based
storage standards for managing hazardous secondary materials and
recycling residuals, etc.).

 Note that RCRA Part B permits are not required for hazardous waste
recycling processes or operations themselves; in general, Part B permits
are issued, as applicable, for storage of hazardous wastes prior to
recycling.

 PAGE

 PAGE   - 6 -


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 12 (Thursday, January 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6318]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01182]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD21-8-000; Docket No. ER02-2001-000]

Technical Conference on Reassessment of the Electric Quarterly
Report Requirements; Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued on
January 8, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff will
convene a technical conference on February 24, 2021 as part of a
reassessment of the Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) requirements, in
Docket No. AD21-8-000. The purpose of this technical conference is to
provide a forum for Commission staff, filers, and data users to discuss
potential changes to the current EQR data fields. This technical
conference is intended to be the first in a series of conferences
related to a reassessment of the EQR requirements.
    All future notices, submittals, and issuances pertaining to the
technical conferences will be issued in Docket No. AD21-8-000. There is
an ``eSubscription'' link on the Commission's website that enables
subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a
subscribed docket(s).

    Dated: January 13, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-01182 Filed 1-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 72 (Friday, April 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 20231]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07863]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on a Request To Release Surplus Property
at the Myrtle Beach International Airport, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
request from the Horry County Department of Airports to waive the
requirement that 0.29 acres of surplus property located at the Myrtle
Beach International Airport be used for aeronautical purposes.
Currently, the ownership of the property provides for the protection of
approach and departure Runway Protection Zones and compatible land use
which would continue to be protected with deed restrictions required in
the transfer of land ownership.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 17, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be emailed or mailed to the
FAA at the following address: Chaim Van Prooyen, Federal Aviation
Administration, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave.,
Ste. 220, College Park, GA 30337.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed to: Scott Van Moppes, Director of Airport, Myrtle Beach
International Airport, 1100 Jetport Road, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
29577.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chaim Van Prooyen, Federal Aviation
Administration, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave.,
Ste. 220, College Park, GA 30337<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in person
at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request to release
0.29 acres of surplus property at the Myrtle Beach International
Airport (MYR) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47151(d). On December
4, 2020, the Horry County Department of Airports requested the FAA
release 0.29 acres of surplus property for the Fred Nash Boulevard
expansion right-of-way. The FAA has determined that the proposed
property release at the Myrtle Beach International Airport (MYR), as
submitted by the Horry County Department of Airports, meets the
procedural requirements of the FAA and release of the property does not
and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may
approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days
after the publication of this notice. In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will receive fair market value
for the property, which will be subsequently reinvested in another
eligible airport improvement project for aviation facilities at the
Myrtle Beach International Airport.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the
application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at the Myrtle Beach International
Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, GA on April 13, 2021.
Larry F. Clark,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2021-07863 Filed 4-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 56 (Monday, March 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16333-16334]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06045]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC20-47-000.
    Applicants: Nuveen Asset Management, LLC, Symphony Asset Management
LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Nuveen Asset Management, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 3/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200316-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER19-260-003.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: DEF Schedule 2 Settlement
Compliance Filing to be effective 6/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200317-5047.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1730-001.
    Applicants: Wind Park Bear Creek, L.L.C.
    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report Under Docket ER19-1730 to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200317-5005.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1886-001.
    Applicants: Stony Creek Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report Under Docket ER19-1886 to
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 3/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200317-5004.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-608-002.
    Applicants: Bear Valley Electric Service, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Second Amendment to MBR Application
Request for Waivers & Blanket Authority to be effective 5/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200316-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-930-001.
    Applicants: South Carolina Generating Company, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment of GENCO Unit Power Sales
Agreement to be effective 1/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200317-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1300-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: First Revised ISA, SA No.
4114; Queue No. AC2-016 to be effective 2/13/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200317-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1311-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1276R21 Evergy Metro NITSA
NOA to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200317-5027.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1312-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule FERC No. 271
between Tri-State and Wheatland to be effective 3/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200317-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1314-000.
    Applicants: Sunflower Electric Power Corporation.
    Description: Petition for Tariff Waiver of Sunflower Electric Power
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 3/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200316-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1315-000.
    Applicants: Citizens Sunrise Transmission LLC.
    Description: Request for Limited Tariff Waiver of Citizens Sunrise
Transmission LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200316-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1316-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Transmission Access Charge
Balancing Account (2020 TACBAA) Revisions to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200317-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1317-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing--Modification of
Formula Rate to be effective 1/27/2020.
    Filed Date: 3/17/20.
    Accession Number: 20200317-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES20-18-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Filed Date: 3/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200316-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 17, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06045 Filed 3-20-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P