Background Information on the National Priorities List ( NPL) BACKGROUND $ CERCLA Section 105( a)( 8)( B) establishes the National Priorities List ( NPL).

S A.. the President shall list as part of the plan national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases throughout the United States and shall revise the list no less often than annually.@

$ The NPL is EPA= s list of sites that warrant further investigation under CERCLA and, if necessary, need remedial action.

$ Only NPL sites may receive Superfund dollars for remedial activities.

$ As of May 2002, there are 1,221 final sites and 74 proposed sites. In addition, 258 sites have been deleted from the NPL.

$ In recent years, approximately 40 sites per year have been added to the NPL. PLACING SITES ON THE NPL $ As a matter of policy, EPA updates the NPL quarterly. Each NPL Update is published in the Federal Register and the list of sites is codified in 40 CFR Part 300 Appendix B.

$ There are 3 mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL:

S Sites can be placed on NPL if the Hazard Ranking System ( HRS) score is 28.5 or greater.

S Each State may designate a single site as its top priority.

S Certain other sites may be listed if the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR) issues a health advisory recommending dissociation and EPA determines costeffectiveness factors.

$ The majority ( greater than 90%) of sites are placed on the NPL using the HRS. HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM ( HRS)

$ The HRS is a mathematical scoring system that serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative threat posed by a site and determine whether the site should be included on the NPL.

S The HRS is not a risk assessment.

$ The HRS evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air.

$ A site score is calculated through the mathematical algorithms prescribed in the HRS. This score does not represent a specified level of risk but serves as a screening level indicator.

$ Sites that score 28.5 or greater are eligible for listing on the NPL. NPL LISTING PROCESS $ A site is first proposed to the NPL in a proposed rule published in the Federal Register.

$ The public then has 60 days in which to comment on EPA= s evaluation and basis for placing the site on the NPL.

$ EPA considers all technical comments received during the comment period and determines whether to finalize the site on the NPL.

$ If it is determined that a site shall be finalized on the NPL, EPA publishes a final rule in the Federal Register and concurrently provides a support document that addresses the comments received for the site. GOVERNOR/ STATE CONCURRENCE POLICY $ In April 1995, Congress placed a provision in EPA= s appropriations bill that required the Governor= s concurrence when placing a site onto the NPL.

$ Although no longer required by appropriations language, as a matter of policy, EPA continues to request State support on the listing of sites onto the NPL.

$ Since 1995, EPA has proposed 203 sites to the NPL. EPA received State concurrence for all NPL listings except for one site which was proposed with State opposition. ( The Fox River site in Wisconsin was proposed to the NPL in July 1998 and has not been finalized.)

$ EPA has received State concurrence on the 202 proposed sites from 40 different States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

$ If a State opposes the listing of a particular site, EPA has an issue resolution process that elevates the decision to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA POLICIES THAT AFFECT NPL LISTING $ EPA Removal Program: EPA has achieved cleanup of many NPL eligible sites using removal authority and funding. In many cases, PRPs have been willing to act under direction of the removal program. A February 14, 2000 OSWER memo titled AUse of Non Time Critical Removal Authority in Superfund Response Actions@ establishes procedures for selecting these removal actions at such sites.

$ Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( NRC) Deferral policy ( 12/ 82): Defers listing of releases of source, by product, or special nuclear material from any NRClicensed facility since NRC has full authority to require cleanup of releases from such facilities. Deferral does not include releases from State licensed facilities.

$ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Deferral policy ( 11/ 89): Defers listing of RCRA Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( with certain defined exceptions) that can be addressed under RCRA subtitle C corrective action authorities.

$ State Deferral policy ( 05/ 95): Establishes formal agreements between EPA and State/ Tribe in which EPA defers consideration of NPL listing at sites while State/ Tribe compels and oversees PRP lead response actions. Response actions should be substantially similar to a response required under CERCLA. EPA claims no further interest at these sites after cleanup is successfully completed.

$ Voluntary Cleanup Program ( 11/ 96): Establishes Memorandum of Agreements ( MOAs) with States to provide comfort for sites that are cleaned up under State programs e. g. EPA assumes that State activities are sufficient and generally EPA does not anticipate taking removal or remedial action at sites in the State program. In total, EPA has signed VCP MOAs with 19 States. EPA POLICIES THAT AFFECT NPL LISTING ( CONT.)

$ NPL equivalent policy ( under development): Provides a framework for EPA and PRPs to negotiate cleanup agreements at non NPL sites. Note that EPA= s enforcement authorities for remedial actions under CERCLA are not limited to NPL sites. EPA Regions have been conducting such negotiations since 1980s. Recently, the level of activity has increased, with over 200 sites subjectively identified as NPL equivalent ( NPLEq). About 80 sites have enforcement agreements in place and 19 proposed NPL sites are currently considered NPL equivalent.

$ Brownfields legislation ( 01/ 02): Subtitle A of Public Law 107 118 allows EPA to provide grant funding for site characterizations and remediation work at an NPL eligible site if the site passes the Aeligible response site@ exclusions criteria. Subtitle C requires EPA to defer final listing of an Aeligible response site@ in lieu of a State/ Tribal program cleanup ( with caveats). NPL POLICY REVIEW $ NPL policy is a core element of the charge to NACEPT.

$ EPA has formed an ARole of the NPL Workgroup@ that consists of representatives from various EPA offices at Headquarters, EPA Regions, States and Tribes.

S The purpose of the Workgroup is to discuss near term strategy for NPL listing policy prior to receiving recommendations from NACEPT.

S The Workgroup is also available to support NACEPT by providing information to any NACEPT requests, responding to questions and providing expert analysis. IMPORTANCE OF THE NPL $ EPA typically lists sites with no PRPs, recalcitrant PRPs, or large areas of contamination beyond a State= s cleanup ability.

$ The ability to list new sites on the NPL is essential to successful implementation of the Superfund program.

$ The NPL provides leverage to EPA and States to secure PRP commitments for non NPL cleanups.

$ Approximately 70% of the NPL sites are PRP lead cleanups, and involve on average only a fraction of the EPA resources spent at Fund lead sites; NPL listing is essential to securing PRP commitment to conduct response.

$ EPA rarely initiates NPL listing independently. More commonly, EPA responds to requests from States/ Tribes or requests from communities when non NPL response options have not proved viable. SUMMARY $ The NPL remains a critical tool in the cleanup of toxic waste sites.

$ However, it is being used more selectively to focus on eligible sites where other cleanup approaches aren= t viable.

$ When other approaches are able to provide cleanup, EPA allows time for these alternatives to effectively address site risks.

$ However, when other options are unavailable or ineffective, NPL listing ensures a comprehensive response to protect human health


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6179-6180]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2319]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Eighth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 223: Airport Surface
Wireless Communications

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 223: Airport Surface Wireless
Communications meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 223: Airport Surface Wireless
Communications.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 22-23, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Harris, Customer Briefing
Center, 1025 W. NASA Boulevard, Building B, Melbourne, Florida 32901,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please RSVP to Glory Sprayberry,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and A. Ahrens<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you are not
a U.S. citizen, please include your visitor name, company/government
agency, country of citizenship, and passport number with your RSVP so
that arrangements can be made with Harris security for attendance at
Harris facilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., and Appendix 2),
notice is hereby given for a RTCA Special Committee 223: Airport
Surface Wireless Communications meeting. Agenda:

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

     Tuesday Morning
     Welcome, Introductions, Administrative Remarks by Special
Committee Leadership
     Designated Federal Officer (DFO): Mr. Brent Phillips
     Co-Chair: Mr. Aloke Roy, Honeywell International
     Co-Chair: Mr. Ward Hall, ITT Corporation
     Agenda Overview
     Review and Approve Plenary Seven Meeting Summary, RTCA
Paper No. 009-11/SC223-016, and action item status
     AeroMACS Profile Working Group Status
     AeroMACS User Services and Applications Ad-Hoc Working
Group Status
     Tuesday Afternoon
     Discussion of AeroMACS Profiles FRAC Report
     Tuesday Evening
     WiMax Forum Coordination

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

     Wednesday Morning--MOPS WG Breakout Session
     Review relevant MOPS Documents as reference
     Review the EUROCAE WG-82 straw man MOPS proposal
     Discuss MOPS content detail versus referencing other
AeroMACS Specs
     Review RTCA MOPS Drafting Guide and make Work Assignments
     Wednesday Afternoon--Reconvene Plenary
     Recap FRAC results and prepare Plenary Report for PMC

     MOPS WG Status Report and Plenary Guidance
     Establish Agenda, Date and Place for the next plenary
meeting
     Review of Meeting summary report
     Adjourn
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 27, 2011.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-2319 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5340]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02518]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste

CFR Correction

0
 In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 260 to 265,
revised as of July 1, 2017, on page 64, in Sec.  261.6, paragraph
(a)(2)(iv) is reinstated to read as follows:

 Sec.  261.6   Requirements for recyclable materials.

    (a)(1) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Spent lead-acid batteries that are being reclaimed (40 CFR
part 266, subpart G).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-02518 Filed 2-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 24 (Thursday, February 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6458-6464]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02326]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1991-0006; FRL-9922-55-Region 8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Midvale Slag Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Midvale Slag
Superfund Site (Site), located in Salt Lake County, Utah, from the
National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the
concurrence of the State of Utah, through the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality (UDEQ), because EPA has determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance and five-year reviews of the Site, have been completed.
However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under
Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective April 6, 2015 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by March 9, 2015. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1991-0006, by one of the following methods: (1) http://www.regulations.gov: Follow on-line instructions for submitting
comments. (2) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (4)
Mail: Erna Waterman, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA, Region 8, Mail
Code 8EPR-SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129 (5) Hand
delivery: US EPA, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, EPR-SR, Denver, CO
80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted during EPA's normal hours
of operation (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.), and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1991-0006. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email

address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at Ruth Tyler Branch
Library, 8041 South Wood, Midvale, UT 84047; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>);
Hours: M-Th: 9 a.m.-9 p.m.; Fri-Sat: 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erna Waterman, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. EPA Region 8, Mail code: 8EPR-SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, CO 80202-1129; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may contact Erna to request a hard copy of
publicly available docket materials.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 8 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Midvale Slag Superfund Site from the National Priorities List. The
NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which
EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that
appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions
financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in
40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain
eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant
such actions.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Midvale Slag Superfund Site
and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V
discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse
comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, 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 Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to the deletion of the Site.
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of Utah prior to developing this
direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete the
Site co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the
Federal Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this
direct final Notice of Deletion and the parallel Notice of Intent to
Delete prior to their publication today, and the State, through UDEQ,
has concurred on the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, the
Salt Lake Tribune. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public
comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from
the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to
Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for further response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The 446-acre Midvale Slag Superfund Site (UTD08134277) is located
12 miles south of Salt Lake City in the city of Midvale, with a small
portion extending into the adjacent city of Murray. The Site is a
former smelting facility on the Jordan River. Five separate smelters
were located on or near the Site from 1871 to 1958. An adjacent mill
continued operating until 1971. The smelters treated ores from Bingham
Canyon and other mines. Investigations

at the Site showed that groundwater and soils were contaminated with
heavy metals. Lead smelting was the dominant industrial activity at the
Site; lead and arsenic were the primary products associated with ore
processing. At times copper, gold, silver, and other metals were also
produced at the Site. Ore processing and disposal of waste products on
the site have resulted in contamination of soils and groundwater at the
Site.
    The EPA proposed the Midvale Slag Superfund Site on the National
Priorities List (NPL) on June 10, 1986 and finalized listing of the
site on February 11, 1991 (51 FR 21099 and 56 FR 5598). The Site was
divided into two operable units (OUs). OU1 is the northern 266 acres of
the site. OU2 is the remaining 180 acres to the south. The dividing
boundary that runs through the Site between OU1 and OU2 is 7200 South
Parkway and Jordan River Boulevard.
    OU1 includes a mobile home park, an abandoned waste water treatment
plant with lagoons, and jurisdictional wetlands. Wastes have been
present on the Site for many years and, in some locations, groundwater
is in direct contact with visible slag without appreciable effects on
groundwater. Concentrations of contaminants of concern (COCs) in OU1
groundwater are generally below federal maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs).
    OU2 is subdivided into areas based on the distribution of unique
smelter and mill wastes. Included within OU2 are the silver refinery
area and the Butterfield Lumber property. In addition, numerous piles
of smelter slag and other smelter wastes were distributed broadly
across this area.
    The EPA proposed the Site to the NPL based on studies conducted
between 1982 and 1985 that found groundwater, soil and sediments
contaminated with heavy metals. Potential human health threats included
drinking contaminated groundwater or ingesting, inhaling, or handling
contaminated soils, wastes or sediments. The EPA fenced portions of the
Site in December 1990 to restrict access to the contaminated wastes.
    The EPA conducted eight removal actions at this Site. The first
removal action after the NPL listing occurred on June 20, 1991, with
the disposal of explosives and lab chemicals at a former on-Site lab.
Additional removal actions conducted between 1995 and 2001 included:
Construction of additional fencing, contaminated soil removal, plugging
contaminated water supply wells, removal of approximately 90
deteriorated drums, and preservation work for the small Midvale Pioneer
Cemetery located near the southeastern corner of the Site.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    Remedial Investigation for OU1: The suspected waste areas within
OU1 were a small landfill and an abandoned waste water treatment plant
with its associated lagoons. Analysis of sample data determined that
neither area contributed to the contaminants of concern detected in
Site soils. Soil contamination was caused by smelter waste from OU2
transported by environmental factors as well as deliberate use of waste
as fill. The Baseline Risk Assessment determined arsenic, cadmium, and
lead as the contaminants of concern in soils at OU1. The OU1
Feasibility Studies (FS) were completed in 1995 for the trailer park
located on the northern end of the Site, and in 1998 for the remaining
portions of OU1.
    Remedial Investigation for OU2: The Site investigations for OU2
focused on mixed smelter waste, slag, and groundwater. These were
evaluated during Site investigations conducted for the Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) prepared in 1993, the Supplemental
Remedial Investigation in 1997 and 1998, and additional
characterizations performed in 2001 and 2002. Surface and subsurface
soil samples were analyzed in five mixed smelter waste areas, calcine
waste, silver refinery waste, and contaminated soils.
    Metals analysis of samples in the former baghouse dust pond area
contained high levels of arsenic trioxide which was determined to be
principal-threat waste (later classified as Category I waste). Four
areas of slag-covered surfaces were also sampled: Air-cooled slag,
water-quenched slag, copper slag, and iron slag for the EE/CA. Analysis
of the slag in these areas found that this slag is not leachable in
concentrations that impact groundwater. The smelter waste and soil
maximum contaminant concentrations were 20,400 mg/kg for arsenic and
26,300 mg/kg for lead. The sediment maximum contaminant concentrations
were 96 mg/kg for arsenic and 721 mg/kg for lead.
    Groundwater evaluations were conducted in the EE/CA. Additional
groundwater studies and RI work was conducted between 1997 and 2002.
The RI activities found significant arsenic in groundwater under the
old smelter works area. The area around the former arsenic plant and
baghouse exhibited the highest levels of arsenic contamination in
ground water at an elevated concentration of 1,300,000 parts per
billion (ppb). The Upper Sand and Gravel (US&G) Aquifer, which
underlies the entire Site from about 15 to 150 feet below ground
surface (bgs), was found to contain a plume that is contaminated with
arsenic up to 4,000 ppb. The Deep Principal Aquifer, which is below the
US&G Aquifer which is used for drinking water is clean. During the Site
investigations in 2001 and 2002, a tetrachloroethylene (PCE) plume
crossing the Site was identified and referred to UDEQ for further
investigation. Since the source of the PCE plume is not on the Site,
CERCLA action is not appropriate. In 2001, surface and subsurface soil
samples were collected from former river meander locations, upland
areas of the corridor, and both banks of the Jordan River. Elevated
levels of metals were detected in surface and subsurface soil samples,
but not the surface water. Consequently, portions of the Jordan River
riparian corridor adjacent to the former smelter were added to the Site
in the 2006 Explanation of Significant Differences for OU2.
    The April 2002 OU2 FS is for the groundwater and the May 2002 OU2
FS is for mixed smelter waste. Many remedial technologies were
considered, including no action, institutional controls, treatment, and
disposal.

Summary of Risk Assessment Activities

    Results of the baseline risk assessment indicate that contaminants
identified in the RI in Site surface and subsurface soil pose a risk of
excess cancer and adverse health effects to current and future
populations at the Site. Risks to future residents, future workers, and
current and future trespasser scenarios exceed acceptable threshold
levels. Estimated risk and hazard were greatest for potential future
residents at the Site. Contaminants in shallow ground water also pose a
risk to future residents and workers. However, shallow ground water is
not currently used as a source of drinking water.
    Redevelopment plans for the Site preclude the presence of
ecological receptors throughout most of the Site. Exceptions consist of
the Jordan River and the recreational park planned for the riparian
area on the east bank of the Jordan River. Results of the ecological
risk assessment indicate that contaminants in sediment and surface
water pose little risk to aquatic receptors. In addition, Site data
indicate that the Site is contributing very little to contaminants
concentrations detected in sediment and surface water. Upstream sources
are the likely contributors to detected concentrations. However,
contaminants are present in the riparian area at concentrations that
could pose a

potential threat to aquatic receptors if allowed to enter the river;
therefore, bank stabilization was completed to minimize migration of
contaminants into the river.
    The recreational park is unlikely to provide significant habitat
for terrestrial receptors. It is more likely that wildlife will have
sporadic exposure in the area. It is anticipated that remedial action
performed to protect child recreational visitors at the park will also
be protective of terrestrial receptors.

OU1 Selected Remedy

    On April 28, 1995, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1
selecting the following remedy: (1) Excavation of a minimum of 18
inches of soil in 14 residential yards in the Winchester Estates
development, placement of clean fill and off-site disposal of soils.
(2) The placement of a 2-foot thick monolayer soil cover over an
undeveloped portion of the Winchester Estates. (3) Institutional
controls for the area receiving the soil cover. (4) Institutional
controls for four other parcels prohibiting future residential land use
without additional remediation. (5) Ground water monitoring at the
hydraulically downgradient Site boundary for a minimum of 5 years.
    In May 1998 and also in February 2006, EPA and UDEQ issued
Explanation of Significant Differences (ESDs) changing the remedy
called for in the 1995 OU1 ROD. The 1998 ESD required the excavation of
contaminated soils on one parcel of land, rather than capping, and thus
eliminated the need for ICs on that parcel. The 2006 ESD changed land
use restrictions to accommodate multiple land uses, created a
consistent approach for both operable units, included riparian
management (both sides of the river) and contained a comprehensive
groundwater monitoring plan in coordination with the OU2 remedy. The
2006 ESD identified the lack of remedial action objectives for
groundwater in the OU1 ROD and adopted the remedial action objectives
selected for groundwater in the OU2 ROD. A final ESD was issued in
October, 2013, clarifying the groundwater Remedial Action Objectives
(RAOs) for OU1 and OU2.
    The amended RAOs for OU1 are as follows: (1) Soil RAO--Prevent
unacceptable exposure risks to current and future human populations
presented by contact, ingestion, or inhalation of smelter materials,
associated contaminated materials, or contaminants of concern (COCs)
derived from the smelter wastes. (2) Ground Water RAOs--Prevent
unacceptable exposure risk to current and future human populations
presented by direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion of contaminated
ground water. Provide that future migration of COCs into previously
uncontaminated portions of the US&G Aquifer and into the Deep Principal
Aquifer is protective of these aquifers as sources of drinking water.
Provide that future discharge of contaminated ground water from the
Site to the Jordan River is protective of the aquatic environment and
designated use.

OU2 Selected Remedy

    On October 29, 2002, EPA signed the Record of Decision for OU2. The
OU2 ROD defined four categories of smelter wastes found throughout OU2.
Principal threat wastes such as crude arsenic trioxide were designated
as Category I waste. Category II wastes included non-slag soils and
smelter waste failing Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
and containing COCs above commercial land use-based remediation goals.
Category III wastes included non-slag soils and smelter wastes passing
TCLP and containing COCs below residential land use-based remediation
goals. EPA classified slag as Category IV waste. The major components
of the selected remedy include: (1) Ground Water: The Deep Principal
Aquifer which is a primary source of drinking water in the Salt Lake
Valley, is not impacted by the Site, although the shallower US&G is
impacted by the Site. The limited action remedy for ground water does
not actively attempt to restore the US&G, but provides compliance
points for monitoring and assessing as well as institutional controls.
The limited action approach relies on ground water and surface water
monitoring to assess whether ground water and surface water criteria
are being met for selected COCs. These selected COCs were established
as a result of using alternate concentration limit (ACL) calculations
and site-specific analyses to be protective of surface water quality
criteria for the Jordan River. An IC to restrict well installation was
also selected as a part of the remedy. The ACLs for the four
groundwater COCs were set at the following: Arsenic 7,000 [micro]g/L;
Cadmium 1,560 [micro]g/L; Selenium 900 [micro]g/L; and Antimony 380
[micro]g/L. (2) Mixed Smelter Waste: The selected remedy for mixed
smelter waste required the excavation and off-Site disposal of Category
I Material, if found, and the installation of appropriate covers over
the remainder of the Category II and III Materials. (3) Slag: The
selected remedy for the slag (Category IV Material) required re-grading
of the slag piles and the installation of appropriate covers. (4) Land
use controls (ICs) were also selected for OU2 to restrict future
excavations and guide future use of the property.
    The 2006 ESD added the riparian area along the Jordan River
corridor to the Site to prevent river migration erosion which could
impact the remedy. In addition, the ESD eliminated the need for ICs on
portions of OU1 which were clean and called for a site wide groundwater
monitoring plan. The 2013 ESD clarified the RAOs for groundwater for
both OU1 and OU2. This clarification removed the groundwater
restoration RAO for both OUs.
    The amended RAOs for OU2 are as follows: (1) Ground Water RAOs--
Prevent unacceptable exposure risk to current and future human
populations presented by direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion of
contaminated ground water. Provide that future migration of COCs into
previously uncontaminated portions of the US&G Aquifer and into the
Deep Principal Aquifer is protective of these aquifers as sources of
drinking water. Provide that future discharge of contaminated ground
water from the Site to the Jordan River is protective of the aquatic
environment and designated use. (2) Mixed Smelter Waste RAOs--Prevent
unacceptable exposure risks to current and future human populations
presented by contact, ingestion, or inhalation of smelter materials,
associated contaminated materials, or COCs derived from the smelter
areas. Prevent unacceptable exposure risks to current and future
ecological receptors presented by contact, ingestion, inhalation, or
uptake from smelter materials, associated contaminated materials, or
COCs derived from the smelter areas. Provide that the future migration
of contaminants from the smelter materials is within limits considered
protective of ground water. Prevent smelter materials from entering the
Jordan River via surface water flow. (3) Slag RAOs Prevent unacceptable
exposure risks to current and future human populations presented by
contact, ingestion, or inhalation of slag or associated contaminated
materials. Prevent unacceptable exposure risks to current and future
ecological receptors presented by uptake from slag, associated
contaminated materials within slag, or COCs derived from the slag
areas. Provide that the future migration of contaminants from the slag
or contaminated materials within slag is within limits considered
protective of ground water. Prevent slag or

contaminated materials within slag from entering the Jordan River via
surface water flow.

Response Actions

    UDEQ was the lead agency for the OU1 remediation as defined in a
cooperative agreement between EPA and UDEQ. Remediation work was
conducted in two phases, with work on the residential portion of
Winchester Estates portion beginning in September 1995 and ending in
April 1996. Remediation of the undeveloped southeast portion of
Winchester Estates was completed by November 1998. The final inspection
of the OU1 remedial action occurred in January 1999 and the RA report
for OU1 signed in March 1999. EPA and UDEQ installed the groundwater
monitoring system and performed the riparian remediation selected in
the 2006 ESD during the implementation of the OU2 remedy.
    A consent decree governed work conducted by the main property
owner, Littleson, Inc. In the consent decree signed with EPA, Midvale
City, and the Union Pacific Railroad, the property owner, Littleson,
Inc., agreed to perform the remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) for
the smelter wastes, slags and impacted soils components of the OU2 ROD
remedy. In the consent decree, Midvale City agreed to enact and enforce
ICs in the form of an ordinance. This consent decree was entered on
November 16, 2004.
    UDEQ was the lead for the ground water portion of the OU2 ROD
remedy as well as the 2006 ESD for OU1. This work was performed under a
cooperative agreement with EPA. EPA was the primary lead for the
riparian portion of the OU2 ROD remedy.

Smelter Wastes, Slags, and Impacted Soils

    Littleson, Inc., completed all remedial activities as planned, and
no additional areas of contamination were identified. EPA, UDEQ and
Midvale City conducted a final inspection of the work upon completion
of the physical construction on June 26, 2006. A one-year warranty
period began on July 6, 2006, to ensure that the remedy continued to
operate as designed. On May 15, 2007, EPA, UDEQ and Midvale City
representatives conducted a second final inspection to verify that the
remedy remained effective. This remedy was declared operational and
functional on August 13, 2007 when EPA approved the Remedial Action
Report. On the same day, EPA certified the completion of the
construction work required under the consent decree.

Riparian Zone OU1 and OU2

    EPA and UDEQ conducted the RD/RA work along 6,800 feet of the
Jordan River riparian corridor adjacent to the western boundary of the
Site. The objective for this work included the reduction and
elimination of river bank erosion that could release smelter waste from
the Site into the river. This work was conducted in four phases, with
the final phase being completed in August 2011. Salt Lake County
conducted the Phase 3 portion of this work under EPA and UDEQ
oversight. Phase 3 involved completing the riparian work from
Winchester Estates south along the eastern bank of the Jordan River and
was funded through a grant from EPA using special account funding.
    EPA, UDEQ and Salt Lake County completed all remedial activities as
planned. EPA and UDEQ conducted a pre-final inspection on August 10,
2011, which included a description and schedule for correcting minor
construction contract items by the contractor. The remaining ``punch''
list item was replacement of some damaged vegetation. EPA and the State
determined that all Riparian Zone work was constructed and/or completed
according to the ROD and design specifications in 2013.

Groundwater OU1 and OU2

    UDEQ completed the installation of the groundwater monitoring
system in December 2008. Construction of the system was completed under
a cooperative agreement established between the EPA and UDEQ. Under
this cooperative agreement, the UDEQ implemented the groundwater
monitoring system design developed by the EPA and conducts quarterly
monitoring. In September 2009, EPA approved the groundwater Remedial
Action Report in which EPA determined that construction of the
monitoring system was complete in accordance with the OU2 ROD and
design specifications.
    UDEQ conducts semi-annual groundwater and surface water monitoring
at the Site using a plan developed during the remedial design. The
monitoring system at the Site currently consists of co-located wells at
15 locations (a total of 30 wells) and two surface water sampling
locations. Each well pair consists of one shallow monitoring well,
screened in the upper interval of the US&G Aquifer, and one
intermediate monitoring well, screened at a lower interval within the
US&G Aquifer. The monitoring system is divided into four groups and
consists of up-gradient, down-gradient, plume core and ACL monitoring
wells. The process for developing ACLs is discussed in the OU2 ROD with
supporting documentation provided in the Administrative Record.
    Although the selected remedy did not attempt to actively restore
the US&G Aquifer, it provided for the monitoring of groundwater and
surface water to assess whether applicable groundwater and surface
water quality criteria are being met for the selected COCs. It also
provided for the creation of ICs to prevent exposure to the
contaminated US&G Aquifer.
    Point of assessment locations for monitoring the US&G Aquifer were
selected based on the location and movement of arsenic contamination on
the Site. Arsenic was selected as the indicator chemical since it is
the most mobile and widespread of the COCs in this aquifer. Monitoring
wells for points of assessment were installed in the shallow and deep
portions of the US&G Aquifer in accordance with plans and
specifications developed during the remedial design. The specific
monitoring objectives are as follows: (1) Conduct groundwater and
surface water monitoring to assess if applicable groundwater and
surface water quality criteria are being met for COCs (antimony,
arsenic, cadmium and selenium). (2) Assess monitoring data and
determine if contamination is moving laterally or vertically within the
boundaries of the Site.
    The UDEQ's Semi-Annual Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring
Report--Midvale Slag Superfund Site dated May 24, 2013 states that
``COC concentrations in the ACL monitoring wells have not exceeded
their respective ACL values and that COC concentrations in surface
water have not exceeded established surface water quality criteria
values for the Jordan River in monitoring results from 2008 to
present.''

Operation and Maintenance

    Maintaining an appropriate soil cover with adequate drainage is an
operation and maintenance activity required as an IC. Midvale City is
responsible for this IC and conducting the following activities:
Inspection/observation during redevelopment construction; review of
development construction plans and specification for conformance with
cover requirements; storm water management and irrigation restrictions;
and temporary stockpile and covering of soil and slag. UDEQ conducts
semi-annual groundwater and surface water monitoring at this Site. COC
concentrations in the ACL monitoring wells have not exceeded their
respective

ACL values and COC concentrations in surface water have not exceeded
established surface water quality criteria values for the Jordan River
in monitoring results from 2008 to present.
    ICs adopted by the Midvale City support limited commercial and
residential re-use of this Site. The OU2 ROD required the establishment
of ICs including land use controls, to prevent exposure to contaminated
materials and review of proposals to change the type of land use at the
Site. In addition, ICs for groundwater and surface water were
established to prevent access to contaminated ground and surface water
and to limit the infiltration in the plume area. Additionally,
groundwater beneath the Site is not used for drinking water under the
State of Utah ICs.
    An Institutional Control Process Plan for OU1 was developed in 2004
as a mechanism to assure that consistent and effective inspection,
maintenance and enforcement activities occurred throughout the Site.
The objective of the ICs are (i) to limit or prohibit exposure of
people and the environment to subsurface contaminants remaining at the
Site by ensuring the protection and maintenance of the cap; (ii) to
prevent or limit certain activities in certain areas of the Site that
may increase the risk of damage to the cap; and (iii) to manage
stormwater and irrigation water to prevent unacceptable impact to the
cap and underlying groundwater.
    In 2007, an ordinance for Bingham Junction, Jordan Bluffs and
designated rights-of-way was implemented by Midvale City which set
forth the requirements and procedures for the public ICs for the
redevelopment and reuse of the Bingham Junction and Jordan Bluffs
properties. The purpose of the ICs was to prevent unacceptable human
exposure to contaminants that remain on Site by ensuring the
protection, maintenance, and improvement of physical barriers that had
been on the various properties.
    Midvale City is responsible for enforcement of the land use ICs.
Midvale City utilizes a grant from EPA to hire a Development Site
Coordinator who is responsible for enforcing the ICs and provides IC
on-Site training for the developer's Special Inspectors when needed.
The Special Inspectors, as well as the Development Site Coordinator,
know which areas of the Site have buried contamination and the exact
location of the protective cap or inert slag demarcation layer located
above the contamination. Midvale City issued permits identify planned
development above the demarcation layer. The Development Site
Coordinator conducts inspections several times a day during
construction as well as visits temporary soil stockpiling, road
construction, storm drain, and landscaping phases of the work to ensure
that the ICs are being followed and the remedy remains protective. In
addition, the Development Site Coordinator monitors the riparian
restoration area and maintains ongoing weekly communication with UDEQ,
EPA and Salt Lake County.

Five-Year Review

    Three statutory five-year reviews have been conducted at the Site:
in October 2003, December 2008, and April 2014. The remedy at the Site
was determined to be protective and no issues were identified in the
latest five-year review. Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP,
EPA will conduct the next five-year review to ensure the continued
protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The next five-year review
is scheduled for completion by April 2019.

Community Involvement

    Major community involvement activities at the Site initially
included establishing a local information repository and forming a
Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and working with the Jordan River
Stakeholders Group. EPA, with representatives from the UDEQ, conducted
community interviews with a broad array of interested residents, agency
representatives, local elected officials and others. These interviews
were the foundation of the Site Community Involvement Plan and
information from these interviews was considered in the remedy
selection process for the Site. Outreach efforts included community
interviews, fact sheets, letters, flyers, door-to-door visits, public
meetings, neighborhood meetings, public comment periods and Web site
updates. The most recent interviews were conducted in the Spring 2013
for the upcoming five-year review.
    Because the community requested future development be considered in
the remedy selection, slag piles were graded to better support
redevelopment and appropriate soil covers were designed as an interim
measure to facilitate future redevelopment. The Site is located right
off the I-15 and I-215 freeways, barely 20 minutes from most Salt Lake
County locations. On August 29, 2006, Midvale Mayor Joanne Seghini
said, ``The land constitutes 20 percent of Midvale and is one of the
last pieces of undeveloped property in the City and was a discouraging
blight.'' Redevelopment began once the institutional controls were
established. A Ready for Reuse Determination was issued by EPA in 2008.
    Today, approximately 70 percent of the Site has been fully
developed for mixed-use that incorporates major retail and office
space, along with needed housing for Midvale City. The Utah Transit
Authority mass transit train system opened a station at the Site which
serves the ``green sustainable community.'' The successful
revitalization of the Midvale community is sustainable, provides mixed
use, and elevates the quality of life with revitalization for years to
come. Improvement of the riparian corridor and bike trail along the
Jordan River has also helped this area thrive. These successful efforts
have resulted in the influx of new residents now inhabiting the Site.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion

    The implemented Site-wide remedy achieves the RAOs specified in the
1995 ROD, 2002 ROD, and 1998, 2006 and 2013 ESDs for all pathways of
exposure. No further Superfund responses are needed to protect human
health and the environment at the Site.
    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a Site may be deleted from
the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in
consultation with UDEQ, has determined that all required response
actions have been implemented and no further response action by
responsible parties is appropriate.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Utah through the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), has determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews have been completed.
Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective April 6, 2015 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
March 9, 2015. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the
deletion, and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to
comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
notice of intent to delete and the

comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to
comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Dated: January 23, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is
amended as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p.306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987
Comp., p.193.

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry
for ``UT'', ``Midvale Slag'', ``Midvale''.

[FR Doc. 2015-02326 Filed 2-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 208 (Friday, October 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65436-65438]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26399]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68084; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-042]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Post-Trade Transparency for Agency Pass-Through Mortgage-
Backed Securities Traded in Specified Pool Transactions and SBA-Backed
Asset-Backed Securities Transactions

October 23, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On August 29, 2012, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change relating to post-trade transparency for Agency
Pass-Through Mortgage-Backed Securities (``MBS'') traded in Specified
Pool Transactions (``SPT'' and, together with MBS, ``MBS SPT'') and
Asset-Backed Securities backed by loans guaranteed as to principal and
interest by the Small Business Administration (``SBA-Backed ABS'') and
traded either SPT (``SBA-Backed ABS SPT'') or To Be Announced (``TBA''
and, together with SBA-Backed ABS, ``SBA-Backed ABS TBA'').\3\ The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on September 13, 2012.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The terms ``Asset-Backed Security,'' ``TBA,'' ``Agency Pass-
Through Mortgage-Backed Security'' and ``Specified Pool
Transaction'' are defined in FINRA Rules 6710(m), (u), (v) and (x),
respectively.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67798 (September 7,
2012), 77 FR 56686 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    FINRA utilizes the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine
(``TRACE'') to collect from its members and publicly disseminate
information on secondary over-the-counter transactions in corporate
debt securities and Agency Debt Securities and certain primary market
transactions. FINRA also utilizes TRACE to collect information on
transactions in Asset-Backed Securities but, until recently, FINRA did
not disseminate such information publicly.\5\ Earlier this year,
however, FINRA amended its rules to reduce the reporting timeframe for
and to provide for public dissemination of information regarding
transactions in Agency Pass-Through Mortgage-Backed Securities traded
TBA (``MBS TBA''), a type of Asset-Backed Security.\6\ FINRA has now
proposed to reduce the reporting timeframe for and to provide for
public dissemination of information regarding transactions in
additional types of Asset-Backed Securities, namely, MBS SPT and SBA-
Backed ABS transactions, and to make certain other changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61566 (February 22,
2010), 75 FR 9262 (March 1, 2010) (approving SR-FINRA-2009-065).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66829 (April 18,
2012), 77 FR 24748 (April 25, 2012) (approving SR-FINRA-2012-020)
(``FINRA-2012-020 Approval'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reduction of Reporting Period

    FINRA has proposed to amend its Rule 6730 to reduce the period for
reporting MBS SPT and SBA-Backed ABS transactions to TRACE. The
reduction would occur in two stages. First, for a pilot program of
approximately 180 days, FINRA will reduce the reporting period from no
later than the close of the TRACE system on the date of execution to no
later than two hours from the Time of Execution.\7\ Second, after
approximately 180 days, the pilot program will expire and the reporting
period will be reduced from no later than two hours from the

Time of Execution to no later than one hour from the Time of
Execution.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ However, there are exceptions for transactions that are
executed within two hours of the close of the TRACE system and for
transactions executed when TRACE is closed.
    \8\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dissemination of MBS SPT and SBA Backed ABS Transaction Information

    Recently, FINRA Rule 6750(b)(4) was amended to provide for
dissemination of information on MBS TBA transactions immediately upon
receipt of the transaction report.\9\ FINRA's current proposal would
amend Rule 6750(b)(4) so that it also provides for dissemination of
information on MBS SPT and SBA Backed ABS transactions immediately upon
receipt of the transaction report. Specifically, FINRA has proposed to
amend Rule 6750(b)(4) to provide that FINRA will not disseminate
information on a transaction in an Asset-Backed Security, except in the
case of MBS transactions--which include MBS TBA as well as MBS SPT--or
SBA-Backed ABS transactions. As a result of this proposed change and
the reduced reporting periods that FINRA has proposed for MBS SPT and
SBA-Backed ABS transactions, information on such transactions will be
disseminated within two hours of the Time of Execution during the pilot
period and within one hour of the Time of Execution after the pilot
period expires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See FINRA 2012-020 Approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dissemination Protocols

    The dissemination of information on MBS SPT and SBA Backed ABS
transactions will be subject to certain dissemination protocols, in
addition to the dissemination cap discussed below. SBA-Backed ABS TBA
transactions will be subject to the same protocols that apply to MBS
TBA transactions ``not for good delivery'' and standard data elements
will be displayed.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See FINRA 2012-020 Approval; see also Notice, 77 FR at
56688 and n.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to MBS SPT and SBA Backed ABS SPT transactions,
however, FINRA has proposed not to disseminate the specific CUSIP of
the security traded. Instead, FINRA has proposed to disseminate certain
publicly available data elements that correspond to the reported CUSIP
(without actually disseminating the CUSIP).\11\ Specifically, for each
MBS SPT transaction reported to TRACE, FINRA would disseminate in lieu
of a CUSIP, the product type, amortization type, issuing agency,
coupon, original maturity, weighted average coupon (``WAC''), weighted
average maturity (``WAM''), weighted average loan age (``WALA''),
average loan size (``ALS''), and original loan-to-value (``original
LTV''). For each SBA-Backed ABS SPT transaction reported to TRACE,
FINRA would disseminate in lieu of a CUSIP, the amortization type,
coupon, original maturity, WAC, WAM, and WALA, except that such values
would be based on SBA-backed pooled loans. Each numerical data element
(which would not include issuing agency, product type or amortization
type) will be expressed in ranges (i.e., the information will be
truncated and rounded up or down).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, 77 FR at 56688-90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dissemination Cap

    FINRA has proposed a dissemination cap of $10 million for MBS SPT
and SBA Backed ABS transactions, which would prevent the display in
disseminated TRACE data of the actual size (volume) of MBS SPT and SBA
Backed ABS transactions with a par value over $10 million; rather, such
transactions will be displayed as ``10MM+.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, 77 FR at 56690. Certain dissemination caps are
already in place. There are $5 million and $1 million caps for
TRACE-Eligible Securities that are rated Investment Grade and Non-
Investment Grade, respectively, which pre-date the FINRA-2012-020
Approval. See id. There are also $25 million and $10 million
dissemination caps for transactions in MBS TBA, with the $25 million
cap applying to one subset of MBS TBA transactions and the $10
million cap applying to another subset. See FINRA-2012-020 Approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Rule Changes

    FINRA has proposed to amend FINRA Rule 6710 to add ``SBA-Backed
ABS'' as a defined term \13\ and to make conforming amendments to the
definitions of TBA, MBS, and SPT in Rules 6710(u), (v), and (x),
respectively, in order to incorporate SBA-Backed ABS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Rule 6710(bb).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Notice

    FINRA has stated that it would announce the effective date of the
proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later
than 60 days following Commission approval, and that the effective date
be no later than 180 days following publication of that Regulatory
Notice.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\14\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\15\ which
requires, among other things, that FINRA rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In approving the original TRACE rules, the Commission stated that
price transparency plays a fundamental role in promoting fairness and
efficiency of U.S. capital markets.\16\ To further the goal of
increasing price transparency in the debt markets in general and the
MBS SPT and SBA-Backed ABS markets in particular, the Commission now
believes that it is reasonable and consistent with the Act for FINRA to
extend post-trade price transparency to transactions in MBS SPT and
SBA-Backed ABS in the manner set forth in the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43873 (January 23,
2001), 66 FR 8131, 8136 (January 29, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, FINRA recently amended its rules to provide for
public dissemination (and timelier reporting to TRACE) of information
on transactions in MBS TBA.\17\ The current proposal will continue this
initiative by making information on MBS SPT and SBA-Backed ABS
transactions publicly available for the first time. In doing so, the
proposal could encourage greater participation in the market, and
thereby contribute to deeper liquidity and increased competition. In
addition, the proposal appears reasonably designed to reduce the
potential for manipulation and promote just and equitable principles of
trade by allowing market participants to make more accurate assessments
of, and enhancing their ability to negotiate fair and competitive
prices in, the MBS SPT and SBA-Backed ABS markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See FINRA-2012-020 Approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Commission believes that the proposed dissemination
protocols for MBS SPT and SBA-Backed ABS SPT transactions, pursuant to
which specified data elements would be disseminated in lieu of actual
CUSIPs, strike an appropriate balance between providing meaningful
post-trade transparency and, at the same time, reducing the potential
for ``reverse engineering'' of transaction data that could permit
identification of a market participant and/or its trading strategy.
According to FINRA, part of the valuation analysis of any Asset-Backed
Security includes a projection of its cash flow which, in turn, relies
on

assumptions about prepayment rates.\18\ FINRA believes that the
specified data elements that will be disseminated for MBS SPT and SBA-
Backed ABS SPT transactions provide information that will allow market
participants to perform such an analysis.\19\ Moreover, FINRA has
represented that, in the future, it could determine to propose
dissemination of additional data elements that it believes would
improve transparency for such transactions.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Notice, 77 FR at 56689.
    \19\ See id.
    \20\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the proposed reduction in reporting times for MBS SPT
and SBA-Backed ABS transactions is an important corollary to the
expansion of post-trade transparency for such transactions. Timelier
reporting should be more conducive to the dissemination of meaningful
(and close-to-real time) MBS SPT and SBA-Backed ABS transaction
information. The Commission believes that reducing the reporting period
as set forth in the proposal would result in important trade
information reaching the market more quickly, thus contributing to
enhanced price transparency for the MBS SPT and SBA-Backed ABS asset
classes.
    Firms covered by these new reporting requirements for MBS SPT and
SBA-Backed ABS transactions could incur certain compliance burdens.
However, the Commission believes that any such burdens are justified by
the overall benefits of increasing transparency in the MBS SPT and SBA-
Backed ABS markets. The Commission notes that FINRA has proposed to
shorten the reporting period for MBS SPT and SBA-Backed ABS
transactions in stages. The Commission believes that this approach is
reasonably designed to ease the compliance burdens on those affected by
the proposal without significantly compromising FINRA's ability to
disseminate more timely transaction information for MBS SPT and SBA-
Backed ABS transactions.
    The Commission recognizes that the $10 million dissemination cap
FINRA has proposed would, to a certain extent, limit the transparency
provided by FINRA's proposal.\21\ However, the Commission notes that
dissemination caps are already in place for transactions in other
TRACE-Eligible Securities.\22\ Moreover, public dissemination of
information on MBS SPT and SBA-Backed ABS transactions has heretofore
not existed in the MBS SPT and SBA-Backed ABS markets. The
dissemination cap will allow FINRA to implement post-trade price
transparency in those markets incrementally. Furthermore, FINRA has
represented that it will continue to review the volume of and liquidity
in those markets and, if warranted in the future, may propose that the
dissemination cap be set at a higher level in order to provide
additional transparency.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Commission notes that, as calculated by FINRA, the $10
million dissemination cap would have limited the display of actual
size for approximately 80% of total volume traded in MBS SPT and
SBA-Backed ABS during the period May 16, 2011 through January 4,
2012. See Notice, 77 FR at 56690 and n.28.
    \22\ See supra note 13.
    \23\ See Notice, 77 FR at 56690.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\24\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2012-042) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26399 Filed 10-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 143 (Friday, July 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 44941]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16218]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

Federal Register CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  85 FR 43625, July
17, 2020.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:  Wednesday, July 22,
2020 at 2:00 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING:  The Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
July 22, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: July 22, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16218 Filed 7-22-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32084]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11371]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0362]

Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Within the Fifth Coast
Guard District

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the
Point Pleasant OPA/NJ Offshore Grand Prix from 10 a.m. through 5 p.m.
on June 12, 2022, and for the Escape the Cape Swim from 7:30 a.m.
through 11 a.m. on June 12, 2022. These actions are necessary to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during these
events. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard
District identifies the regulated area for these events. During the
enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area
must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official
Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 will be enforced for the
regulated areas listed in Table 1 to Paragraph (i)(1) of Sec.  100.501
for the Point Pleasant OPA/NJ Offshore Grand Prix from 10 a.m. to 5
p.m. on June 12, 2022 and for the Escape the Cape Swim from 7:30 a.m.
to 11 p.m. on June 12, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Jennifer
Padilla, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management
Division, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce special local
regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 for the regulated areas of the Point
Pleasant OPA/NJ Offshore Grand Prix from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on June 12,
2022, and of the Escape the Cape Swim from 7:30 a.m. to 11 p.m. on June
12, 2022. These actions are being taken to provide for the safety of
life on navigable waterways during these two events. Our regulation for
marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, Sec.  100.501,
specifies the location of the regulated area for the Point Pleasant
OPA/NJ Offshore Grand Prix which encompasses portions of Atlantic Ocean
off Point Pleasant Beach, NJ and for the Escape the Cape Swim which
encompasses portions of the Delaware Bay off Lower Township, NJ. During
the enforcement periods, as reflected in Sec.  100.100(g), if you are
the operator of a vessel in the regulated area, you must comply with
directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying
a Coast Guard ensign.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this
enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine
information broadcasts.

    Dated: May 19, 2022.
Jonathan D. Theel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2022-11371 Filed 5-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20679-20680]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07811]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Project No. 9690-115; Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC, Eagle Creek Water
Resources, LLC, Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC

Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and
Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for
Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 9690-115.
    c. Date Filed: March 31, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Eagle Creek Hydro Power, LLC, Eagle Creek Water
Resources, LLC, and Eagle Creek Land Resources, LLC (collectively
referred to as Eagle Creek).
    e. Name of Project: Rio Hydroelectric Project (Rio Project).
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Mongaup River
in Sullivan and Orange Counties, New York. The project does not occupy
federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Robert Gates, Senior Vice President--
Regulatory, Eagle Creek Renewable Energy, LLC., 116 N State Street,
P.O. Box 167, Neshkoro, WI 54960-0167;<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Nicholas Ettema at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. Project Description: The Rio Project consists of: (1) A
reservoir with a gross storage capacity of 14,536 acre-feet and a
surface area of 444 acres; (2) a 264-foot-long, gravity-type concrete
spillway with a maximum height of 101 feet at a crest elevation of 810
feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

(NGVD29); (3) a 22-foot-long, concrete gravity intake structure; (4) a
99-foot-long, concrete gravity non-overflow section; (5) a 540-foot-
long, earth-fill embankment; (6) a 102-foot-long, concrete gravity non-
overflow section; (7) a 460-foot-long, earth-fill embankment with a 20-
foot-wide crest at an elevation of 825 feet NGVD29; (8) a 1.5-mile-long
bypassed reach; (9) a 7,000-foot-long, 11-foot-diameter steel penstock
connected to a 40-foot-diameter by 65-foot-high steel surge tank; (10)
a 10-foot-diameter, 280-foot-long underground steel penstock from the
surge tank branching into two 7-foot-diameter, 100-foot-long steel
penstocks leading to the main and minimum flow powerhouses; (11) a 22-
foot-square reinforced-concrete gatehouse; (12) a 15-foot-wide by 46-
foot-high trashrack with 2.9-inch bar clear spacing; (13) a 82-foot-
long by 30-feet-wide by 33-foot-high brick and steel main powerhouse
containing two 5 megawatt (MW) vertical-axis turbines; (14) a 30-foot-
long by 27-foot-wide by 24-foot-high reinforced concrete minimum flow
powerhouse containing one 0.8 MW horizontal-axis turbine; (15) a 45-
foot-wide by 225-foot-long tailrace with a 65-foot-long concrete weir
from the main powerhouse; (16) a 10-foot-wide by 38-foot-long tailrace
from the minimum flow powerhouse; and (17) a 760-foot-long, 4-kilovolt
aboveground transmission line. The project generates an average of
24,859 megawatt-hours annually. The megawatt-hours represents Units 1
through 3 from 2014-2019, including an extended outage of Unit 3 in
2015. Eagle Creek proposes to continue to operate the project in a
peaking mode.
    l. A copy of the application is available for review on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room due to the Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency
Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak, issued by
the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be
made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready    July 2020.
 for Environmental Analysis.
Filing of recommendations, preliminary  November 2020.
 terms and conditions, and fishway
 prescriptions.
Commission issues Environmental         May 2021.
 Assessment (EA).
Comments on EA........................  June 2021.
Modified terms and conditions.........  August 2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: April 8, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07811 Filed 4-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P