[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 248 (Thursday, December 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61613-61614]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27990]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82385; File No. 4-715]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Order Declaring
Effective a Minor Rule Violation Plan

December 21, 2017.
    On November 16, 2017, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed minor
rule violation plan (``MRVP'' or ``Plan'') pursuant to Section 19(d)(1)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19d-
1(c)(2) thereunder.\2\ The proposed MRVP was published for comment on
November 28, 2017.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. This order declares the Exchange's proposed MRVP effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(d)(1)
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82146 (November 22,
2017), 82 FR 56280 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's MRVP specifies the rule violations which will be
included in the Plan and will have sanctions not exceeding $2,500. Any
violations which are resolved under the MRVP would not be subject to
the provisions of Rule 19d-1(c)(1) of the Act,\4\ which requires that a
self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') promptly file notice with the
Commission of any final disciplinary action taken with respect to any
person or organization.\5\ In accordance with Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under
the Act,\6\ the Exchange proposed to designate certain specified rule
violations as eligible for consideration as minor rule violations, and
requested that it be relieved of the prompt reporting requirements
regarding such violations, provided it gives notice of the violations
to the Commission on a quarterly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(1).
    \5\ The Commission adopted amendments to paragraph (c) of Rule
19d-1 to allow SROs to submit for Commission approval plans for the
abbreviated reporting of minor disciplinary infractions. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 21013 (June 1, 1984), 49 FR
23828 (June 8, 1984). Any disciplinary action taken by an SRO
against any person for violation of a rule of the SRO which has been
designated as a minor rule violation pursuant to a plan filed with
and declared effective by the Commission is not considered ``final''
for purposes of Section 19(d)(1) of the Act if the sanction imposed
consists of a fine not exceeding $2,500 and the sanctioned person
has not sought an adjudication, including a hearing, or otherwise
exhausted his administrative remedies.
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposed to include in its MRVP the procedures and
violations currently included in Exchange Rule 1014 (``Imposition of
Fines for Minor Rule Violations'').\7\ According to the Exchange's
proposed MRVP, under Exchange Rule 1014, the Exchange may impose a fine
(not to exceed $2,500) on any Member, or person associated with or
employed by a Member, for any rule listed in Rule 1014(d).\8\ The
Exchange shall serve the person against whom a fine is imposed with a
written statement setting forth the rule or rules violated, the act or
omission constituting each such violation, the fine imposed, and the
date by which such determination becomes final or by which such
determination must be contested. If the person against whom the fine is
imposed pays the fine, the payment shall be deemed to be a waiver of
the person's right to a disciplinary proceeding and any review of the
matter under the Exchange rules. Any person against whom a fine is
imposed may contest the Exchange's determination by filing with the
Exchange a written answer, at which point the matter shall

proceed under the rules governing formal disciplinary proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange received its grant of registration on December
13, 2016, which included approving the rules that govern the
Exchange. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79543 (December
13, 2016), 81 FR 92901 (December 20, 2016).
    \8\ While Rule 1014 allows the Exchange to administer fines up
to $5,000, the Exchange is only seeking relief from the reporting
requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 19d-1 for fines
administered under Rule 1014(d) that do not exceed $2,500.
    Under the proposed MRVP, violations of the following rules would
be appropriate for disposition under the MRVP: Rule 307 (Position
Limits); Rule 803 (Focus Reports); Rule 804 (Requests for Trade
Data); Rule 520 (Order Entry); Rule 605 (Execution of Orders in
Appointed Options); Rule 314 (Mandatory Systems Testing); Rule 700
(Exercise of Option Contracts); Rule 309 (Exercise Limits); Rule 310
(Reports Related to Position Limits); Rule 403 (Trading in
Restricted Classes); Rule 605 (Market Maker Quotations); and Rules
1301, 1302, and 1303 (Failure to Timely File Amendments to Form U4,
Form U5, and Form BD). According to the Exchange, Conduct and
Decorum Policies under Rule 1014(d)(4) are excluded from the
proposed MRVP. See Notice, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the Exchange's MRVP is effective, the Exchange will provide to
the Commission a quarterly report for any actions taken on minor rule
violations under the MRVP. The quarterly report will include: The
disposition date, the name of the firm/individual, the Exchange's
internal enforcement number, the review period, the nature of the
violation type, the number of the rule that was violated, the number of
times the violation occurred, and the sanction imposed.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange attached a sample form of the quarterly report
with its submission to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the
public interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2)
under the Act,\10\ because the MRVP will permit the Exchange to carry
out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities as an SRO more
efficiently in cases where formal disciplinary proceedings are not
necessary due to the minor nature of the particular violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In declaring the Exchange's MRVP effective, the Commission does not
minimize the importance of compliance with Exchange rules and all other
rules subject to the imposition of sanctions under Exchange Rule 1014.
Violation of an SRO's rules, as well as Commission rules, is a serious
matter. However, Exchange Rule 1014 provides a reasonable means of
addressing violations that do not rise to the level of requiring formal
disciplinary proceedings, while providing greater flexibility in
handling certain violations. The Commission expects the Exchange to
continue to conduct surveillance and make determinations based on its
findings, on a case-by-case basis, regarding whether a violation
requires formal disciplinary action or whether a sanction under the
MRVP is appropriate.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the
Act,\11\ that the proposed MRVP for MIAX PEARL, LLC, File No. 4-715,
be, and hereby is, declared effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27990 Filed 12-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44915-44917]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17752]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1240

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0639]

Turtles Intrastate and Interstate Requirements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend
its regulations regarding the prohibition on the sale, or other
commercial or public distribution, of viable turtle eggs and live
turtles with a carapace length of less than 4 inches to remove
procedures for destruction as FDA believes it is not necessary to
routinely demand this destruction to achieve the purpose of the
regulations. This action would reduce the need for investigator
training and the time for the care and humane destruction of these
animals.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments by October 8, 2013.
If FDA receives any significant adverse comments, the Agency will
publish a document withdrawing the direct final rule within 30 days
after the comment period ends. FDA will then proceed to respond to
comments under this proposed rule using the usual notice and comment
procedures.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2013-
N-0639, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following ways:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (For paper or CD-ROM
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency name
and Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0639 for this rulemaking. All comments
received may be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, see the ``Comments'' heading of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dillard Woody, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-231), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA published regulations in Sec.  1240.62 (21 CFR 1240.62) on May
23, 1975 (40 FR 22543), that ban the sale and distribution of viable
turtle eggs and turtles with a carapace length of less than 4 inches to
stop the spread of turtle-associated salmonellosis in humans,
especially in young children.
    The regulations provide that viable turtle eggs and live turtles
with a carapace length of less than 4 inches shall not be sold, held
for sale, or offered for any other type of commercial or public
distribution. The ban does not apply to such distribution for bona fide
scientific, educational, or exhibitional purposes other than use as
pets; to such distribution not in connection with a business; and to
such distribution intended for export only. In addition, the turtle ban
does not apply to marine turtles and their eggs.
    The regulations further provide that any turtle eggs or live
turtles with a carapace length of less than 4 inches

that are held for sale or offered for any other type of commercial or
public distribution in violation of the regulations shall be subject to
destruction in a humane manner by or under the supervision of an
officer or employee of FDA, in accordance with specified procedures.
Once a written demand for destruction is served, the rule prohibits the
selling, distributing, or otherwise disposing of the viable turtle eggs
or live turtles in a manner other than destroying them under FDA
supervision.
    FDA is proposing to amend the regulations to remove the provisions
making violative turtle eggs and live turtles routinely subject to
destruction by or under the supervision of an officer or employee of
FDA. FDA does not believe that it is necessary to routinely demand
destruction of viable turtle eggs and live turtles with a carapace
length of less than 4 inches. FDA believes that other activities would
achieve the purpose of the regulations, which were enacted to prevent
the spread of turtle-associated salmonellosis, especially to young
children. These other alternatives include: Raising the turtles until
the turtles achieve a carapace length of 4 inches or greater; donating
the viable turtle eggs or live turtles to an entity that meets one of
the bona fide scientific, educational, or exhibitional exemptions, as
provided in the regulations; or exporting the turtles in compliance
with all applicable laws.
    Although FDA does not believe it is necessary to routinely demand
destruction of viable turtle eggs and live turtles with a carapace
length of less than 4 inches, as provided for in the regulations, FDA
recognizes that it has the authority and obligation to take appropriate
measures to prevent the spread of communicable disease, especially in
the face of widespread outbreaks or other public health emergencies.
FDA would retain the authority to destroy or order the destruction of
viable turtle eggs or live turtles of any size under 21 CFR 1240.30,
which provides that, ``[w]henever the Commissioner of Food and Drugs
determines that the measures taken by health authorities of any State
or possession (including political subdivision thereof) are
insufficient to prevent the spread of any of the communicable diseases
. . . he may take such measures to prevent such spread of the diseases
as he deems reasonably necessary, including . . . destruction of
animals or articles believed to be sources of infection.''
    This proposed rule would not affect the ban on the sale of viable
turtle eggs and live turtles with a carapace length of less than 4
inches. Those provisions of the regulations would remain in effect.
Violators would still be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or
imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both, for each violation, in
accordance with section 368 of the Public Health Service Act (the PHS
Act) (42 U.S.C. 271).

II. Companion Document to Direct Final Rulemaking

    This proposed rule is a companion to the direct final rule
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. FDA proposes
to amend Sec.  1240.62 by removing the provisions making viable turtle
eggs and live turtles with a carapace length of less than 4 inches that
are held for sale or offered for any other type of commercial or public
distribution in violation of the regulations routinely subject to
destruction and the associated required procedures. This proposed rule
is intended to make noncontroversial changes to existing regulations.
The Agency does not anticipate receiving any significant adverse
comment on this rule.
    Consistent with FDA's procedures on direct final rulemaking, we are
publishing elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register a companion
direct final rule. The direct final rule and this companion proposed
rule are substantively identical. This companion proposed rule provides
the procedural framework within which the rule may be finalized in the
event the direct final rule is withdrawn because of any significant
adverse comment. The comment period for this proposed rule runs
concurrently with the comment period of the companion direct final
rule. Any comments received in response to the companion direct final
rule will also be considered as comments regarding this proposed rule.
    FDA is providing a comment period for the proposed rule of 75 days
after the date of publication in the Federal Register. If FDA receives
a significant adverse comment, we intend to withdraw the direct final
rule before its effective date by publication of a notice in the
Federal Register within 30 days after the comment period ends. A
significant adverse comment is one that explains why the rule would be
inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or
approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In
determining whether an adverse comment is significant and warrants
withdrawing a direct final rule, the Agency will consider whether the
comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive
response in a notice-and-comment process in accordance with section 553
of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553).
    Comments that are frivolous, insubstantial, or outside the scope of
the proposed rule will not be considered significant or adverse under
this procedure. For example, a comment recommending a regulation change
in addition to those in the proposed rule would not be considered a
significant adverse comment unless the comment states why the proposed
rule would be ineffective without the additional change. In addition,
if a significant adverse comment applies to an amendment, paragraph, or
section of this proposed rule and that provision can be severed from
the remainder of the rule, FDA may adopt as final those provisions of
the proposed rule that are not the subject of a significant adverse
comment.
    If FDA does not receive significant adverse comment in response to
the proposed rule, the Agency will publish a document in the Federal
Register confirming the effective date of the final rule. The Agency
intends to make the direct final rule effective 30 days after
publication of the confirmation document in the Federal Register.
    A full description of FDA's policy on direct final rule procedures
may be found in a guidance document published in the Federal Register
of November 21, 1997 (62 FR 62466). The guidance document may be
accessed at http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm125166.htm.

III. Legal Authority

    FDA is issuing this proposed rule under the public health
provisions of the PHS Act. Section 361 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 264)
allows the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to
make and enforce regulations that are necessary ``to prevent the
introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases.''

IV. Environmental Impact

    FDA has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(g) that this action is of a
type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

V. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis

    FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive
Order

12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Agencies to assess all costs
and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation
is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).
The Agency believes that this proposed rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. This proposed rule would not affect the ban on the
sale of viable turtle eggs and live turtles with a carapace length of
less than 4 inches. Since it would allow for, but not require, a change
in the disposition of any seized turtles or eggs, it would not impose
any additional compliance costs. Further, it could result in a small
savings to the Agency from reduced investigator training for the care
and humane destruction of these animals. The Agency proposes to certify
that the proposed rule if finalized would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires
that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment
of anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ``any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $141 million, using the most current (2012) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this
proposed rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or
exceed this amount.

VI. Federalism

    FDA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that
the proposed rule, if finalized, would not contain policies that have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Accordingly, the Agency tentatively concludes that the proposed rule
does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined
in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact
statement is not required.

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposed rule contains no collection of information.
Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

VIII. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1240

    Communicable diseases, Public health, Travel restrictions, Water
supply.

    Therefore under the Public Health Service Act and under authority
delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is proposed that 21
CFR part 1240 be amended as follows:

PART 1240--CONTROL OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 1240 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 216, 243, 264, 271.

Sec.  1240.62  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  1240.62, remove paragraph (c) and redesignate paragraphs
(d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d), respectively.

    Dated: July 16, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-17752 Filed 7-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23246-23247]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9327]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R04-OW-2011-0555; FRL-9660-8]

Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the
Commonwealth of Kentucky

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of tentative approval.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the Commonwealth of Kentucky is
revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. Kentucky
has adopted the following rules: Public Notification Rule, Arsenic
Rule, Radionuclides Rule, Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule, Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term Revisions, Stage 1 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproduct Rule and the Stage 2 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproduct Rule. The EPA has determined that Kentucky's
rules are no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations.
Therefore, the EPA is tentatively approving this revision to the
Commonwealth of Kentucky's Public Water System Supervision Program.

DATES: Any interested person may request a public hearing. A request
for a public hearing must be submitted by May 18, 2012, to the Regional
Administrator at the EPA, Region 4 address shown below. The Regional
Administrator may deny frivolous or insubstantial requests for a
hearing. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made
by May 18, 2012, a public hearing will be held. If the EPA, Region 4
does not receive a timely and appropriate request for a hearing and the
Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own
motion, this determination shall become final and effective on May 18,
2012. Any request for a public hearing shall include the following
information: The name, address, and telephone number of the individual,
organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; a brief statement
of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's
determination and a brief statement of the information that the
requesting person intends to submit at such

hearing; and the signature of the individual making the request, or, if
the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the
signature of a responsible official of the organization or other
entity.

ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available
for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the following offices: Kentucky Department for
Environmental Protection, Division of Water, 200 Fair Oaks Lane, Fourth
Floor, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601; and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Safe Drinking Water Branch, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Smith, EPA Region 4, Safe
Drinking Water Branch, at the address given above, by telephone at
(404) 562-9845, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Authority:  Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended (1996), and 40 CFR part 142.

    Dated: January 9, 2012.
Stan Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-9327 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 106 (Monday, June 3, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25509-25514]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11408]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0077 and 0078; FRL-9994-59-OLEM]

National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before August 2, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate docket number from the table below.

                                      Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Site name                    City/county, state                       Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schroud Property....................  Chicago, IL.................  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0077
Arsenic Mine........................  Kent, NY....................  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2019-0078
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You may send comments, identified by the appropriate docket number,
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Agency website: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/current-npl-updates-new-proposed-npl-sites-and-new-npl-sites.
    Scroll down to the site for which you would like to submit comments
and click the ``Comment Now'' link.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Superfund Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the appropriate
Docket ID No. for site(s) for which you are submitting comments.
Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on
the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Review/Public Comment''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Assessment and Remediation Division, Office
of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Mail code 5204P,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Review/Public Comment
    A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
    B. How do I access the documents?
    C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?
    D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
regional dockets?
    E. How do I submit my comments?
    F. What happens to my comments?
    G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
    H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is
over?
    I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
    J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed
to the NPL?
II. Background
    A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What is the NCP?
    C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
    E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
    G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
    H. May the EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
    I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
    J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?
    K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Public Review/Public Comment

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

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

B. How do I access the documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters

or the regional dockets after the publication of this proposed rule.
The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding federal holidays. Please
contact the regional dockets for hours.
    The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters
Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Superfund (CERCLA) Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC
20004; 202/566-0276. (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail
comments to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this
preamble.)
    The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:
     Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA,
Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.
     Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
     Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV),
U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA
19103; 215/814-3355.
     Cathy Amoroso, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN),
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/
562-8637.
     Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA
Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/
886-4465.
     Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/
665-7436.
     Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA,
11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7956.
     Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY),
U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129;
303/312-6578.
     Sharon Bowen, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
415/947-4250.
     Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th
Avenue, Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.
    You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the
regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written
request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary
procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note
that due to the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized
maps may be viewed only in-person; since the EPA dockets are not
equipped to both copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them
out electronically.
    You may use the docket at https://www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters docket. Please note that there are
differences between the Headquarters docket and the regional dockets
and those differences are outlined in this preamble below.

C. What documents are available for public review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?

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

D. What documents are available for public review at the EPA regional
dockets?

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

E. How do I submit my comments?

    Follow the online instructions detailed above in the ADDRESSES
section for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

F. What happens to my comments?

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

G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?

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

H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?

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

I. May I view public comments submitted by others?

    During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the regional
dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
    All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper
form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic
public docket at https://www.regulations.gov as the EPA receives them
and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
confidential business information (CBI) or other

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Once in the
public dockets system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate
docket ID number.

J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the
NPL?

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

II. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

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

B. What is the NCP?

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

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

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

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS,
which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300).
The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential
of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to
pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990
(55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in
response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. On January 9, 2017
(82 FR 2760), a subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS to
enable the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous substances or
pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures
through subsurface intrusion when evaluating sites for the NPL. The
current HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil
exposure and subsurface intrusion, and air. As a matter of agency
policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible
for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each state may
designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL,
without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the
extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each
state as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the
environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for
listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). (3) The third
mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3),
allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the
following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
     The EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health.
     The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to
use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond
to the release.

The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

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

appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including
enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

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

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

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

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

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

I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

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

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund
accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority the EPA
places on considering anticipated future land use as part of the remedy
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies
to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup
goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are
in place. The EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out
remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the
environment for current and future land uses, in a manner that allows
contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and economic
vitality. For further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/superfund/about-superfund-cleanup-process#tab-9.

K. What is state/tribal correspondence concerning NPL listing?

    In order to maintain close coordination with states and tribes in
the NPL listing decision process, the EPA's policy is to determine the
position of the states and tribes regarding sites that the EPA is
considering for listing. This consultation process is outlined in two
memoranda that can be found at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.
    The EPA has improved the transparency of the process by which state
and tribal input is solicited. The EPA is using the Web and where
appropriate more structured state and tribal correspondence that (1)
explains the concerns at the site and the EPA's rationale for
proceeding; (2) requests an explanation of how the state intends to
address the site if placement on the NPL is not favored; and (3)
emphasizes the transparent nature of the process by informing states
that information on their responses will be publicly available.
    A model letter and correspondence from this point forward between
the EPA and states and tribes where applicable, is available on the
EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

    In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add two sites to the
NPL, both to the General Superfund section. Schroud Property is being
proposed for NPL addition based on an HRS score of 28.50 or above.
Arsenic Mine is being proposed based on ATSDR health advisory criteria.
    The sites are presented in the table below.

                        General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      State               Site name                  City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL..............  Schroud Property.........  Chicago.
NY..............  Arsenic Mine.............  Kent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This rule does not contain any information collection
requirements that require approval of the OMB.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This rule
listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations on any group,
including small entities. This rule also does not establish standards
or requirements that any small entity must meet and imposes no direct
costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is
liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends
on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). Any such
liability exists regardless of whether the site is listed on the NPL
through this rulemaking.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Listing a
site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean
that the EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does
listing require any action by a private party, state, local or tribal
governments or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise
out of site responses result from future site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of placing a
site on the NPL

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Listing a site on the NPL does not impose any
costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because this action itself is procedural in
nature (adds sites to a list) and does not, in and of itself, provide
protection from environmental health and safety risks. Separate future
regulatory actions are required for mitigation of environmental health
and safety risks.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in
Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of
national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in

determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the
nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated
with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The
NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to
any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Dated: May 23, 2019.
Barry N. Breen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency
Management.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 300 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(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

0
2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is proposed to be amended by
adding the entries for ``Schroud Property'', and ``Arsenic Mine'' in
alphabetical order by state.

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

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

                              * * * * * * *
IL......  Schroud Property......  Chicago..........

                              * * * * * * *
NY......  Arsenic Mine..........  Kent.............  A

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic
  Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be
  greater than or equal to 28.50).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-11408 Filed 5-31-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 125 (Friday, July 2, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35217-35221]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14268]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 125 / Friday, July 2, 2021 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0509; Project Identifier AD-2021-00608-E;
Amendment 39-21626; AD 2021-11-51]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; International Aero Engines AG Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain International Aero Engines AG (IAE) V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-
A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 model turbofan
engines. This AD was prompted by a review of investigative findings
from an event involving an uncontained failure of a high-pressure
turbine (HPT) 1st-stage disk that resulted in high-energy debris
penetrating the engine cowling. This AD requires an ultrasonic
inspection (USI) of affected HPT 1st-stage disks and HPT 2nd-stage
disks and, depending on the results of the USI, removal of the affected
HPT 1st-stage and HPT 2nd-stage disks from service. The FAA previously
sent an emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of these
engines and is now issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 19, 2021. Emergency AD 2021-11-51,
issued on May 21, 2021, which contained the requirements of this
amendment, was effective with actual notice.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications identified in this AD as of July 13,
2021 (86 FR 30380, June 8, 2021).
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by August 16, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact:
International Aero Engines AG, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT
06118; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: http://fleetcare.pw.utc.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0509.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0509; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alberto Hernandez, Aviation Safety
Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 21, 2021, the FAA issued Emergency AD 2021-11-51 (the
emergency AD), which requires a USI of affected HPT 1st-stage disks and
HPT 2nd-stage disks installed on IAE V2522-A5, V2524-A5, V2527-A5,
V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 model turbofan engines
and, depending on the results of the USI, removal of the affected HPT
disks from service. The FAA sent the emergency AD to all known U.S.
owners and operators of these engines. That action was prompted by a
review of investigative findings from an event involving an uncontained
failure of an HPT 1st-stage disk that resulted in high-energy debris
penetrating the engine cowling. This condition, if not addressed, could
result in uncontained HPT failure, release of high-energy debris,
damage to the engine, damage to the airplane, and loss of the airplane.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency evaluated all the
relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed IAE Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB)
V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, dated January 26, 2021 (IAE NMSB V2500-
ENG-72-0713). IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713 specifies procedures for
performing an ultrasonic inspection of the HPT 1st-stage disk and the
HPT 2nd-stage disk installed on IAE V2500-A5 and V2500-D5 series
engines.
    The FAA also reviewed IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015, dated December 15,
2020 (IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015). IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015 specifies
procedures for performing an ultrasonic inspection of the HPT 1st-stage
disk and the HPT 2nd-stage disk installed on V2500-E5 series engines.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-
72-0713 and IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015 for incorporation by reference as
of July 13, 2021 (86 FR 30380, June 8, 2021). This service information
is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to
it through their normal course of business or by the means identified
in ADDRESSES.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires a USI of affected HPT 1st-stage disks and HPT 2nd-
stage disks installed on IAE V2522-A5,

V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5 model
turbofan engines and, depending on the results of the USI, removal of
the affected HPT disks from service.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action. The root cause of this
event is still under investigation.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that required the immediate adoption of
Emergency AD 2021-11-51, issued on May 21, 2021, to all known U.S.
owners and operators of these engines. The FAA has found that the risk
to the flying public justified forgoing notice and comment prior to
adoption of this rule.
    On March 18, 2020, an Airbus Model A321-231 airplane, powered by
IAE V2533-A5 model turbofan engines, experienced an uncontained HPT
1st-stage disk failure that resulted in an aborted takeoff. The
uncontained failure of the HPT 1st-stage disk resulted in high-energy
debris penetrating the engine cowling. The FAA published Emergency AD
2020-07-51 on March 21, 2020 (followed by publication in the Federal
Register on April 13, 2020, as a Final Rule, Request for Comments (85
FR 20402)), to remove from service HPT 1st-stage disks identified as
having the highest risk of failure. Based on a review of investigative
findings performed since that event, the manufacturer has identified a
different population of affected HPT 1st-stage and HPT 2nd-stage disks
that are affected by the same unsafe condition and require USI and,
depending on the results of the USI, removal from service.
    The FAA considers removal of high-risk HPT 1st-stage and 2nd-stage
disks to be an urgent safety issue. The USI of the affected HPT disks
must be accomplished within 10 flight cycles after the effective date
of this AD to identify HPT 1st-stage and 2nd-stage disks at risk of
failure and to maintain an acceptable level of safety. This unsafe
condition may result in loss of the airplane. These conditions still
exist, and therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment
are impracticable and contrary to public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds that good
cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment
effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA finds good
cause to forego notice and comment.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include the Docket No. FAA-2021-0509 and Project Identifier
AD-2021-00608-E at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Alberto
Hernandez, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and
comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 2 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultrasonic inspection (includes         204 work-hours x $85 per              $0         $17,340         $34,680
 actions necessary to disassemble the    hour = $17,340.
 engine).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need these replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace the HPT 1st-stage disk or HPT 2nd-      0 work-hours x $85 per hour = $0        $300,000        $300,000
 stage disk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2021-11-51 International Aero Engines AG: Amendment 39-21626; Docket
No. FAA-2021-0509; Project Identifier AD-2021-00608-E.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective without actual
notice on July 19, 2021. Emergency AD 2021-11-51, issued on May 21,
2021, which contained the requirements of this amendment, was
effective with actual notice.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to International Aero Engines AG (IAE) V2522-A5,
V2524-A5, V2527-A5, V2527E-A5, V2527M-A5, V2530-A5, and V2533-A5
model turbofan engines with:
    (1) A high-pressure turbine (HPT) 1st-stage disk, part number
(P/N) 2A5001, with serial number (S/N), PKLBR34908, PKLBR59989,
PKLBR83471, PKLBSC9996, PKLBSG0105, PKLBSG9043 or PKLBSH1829,
installed; or
    (2) An HPT 2nd-stage disk, P/N 2A4802, with S/N PKLBR87800,
PKLBR88708 PKLBR89452, PKLBSA9907, PKLBSH9246, PKLBSC8066,
PKLBSC8077, or PKLBSG2213, installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine
Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a review of investigative findings from
an event involving an uncontained failure of an HPT 1st-stage disk
that resulted in high-energy debris penetrating the engine cowling.
The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the HPT. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained HPT
failure, release of high-energy debris, damage to the engine, damage
to the airplane, and loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    (1) For affected engines with an installed HPT 1st-stage disk
listed in Table 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, within 10 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, perform an ultrasonic
inspection (USI) of the HPT 1st-stage disk using the Accomplishment
Instructions, paragraph 6, of IAE Non-Modification Service Bulletin
(NMSB) V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, dated January 26, 2021 (IAE
NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713).

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02JY21.000

    (2) For affected engines with an installed HPT 2nd-stage disk
listed in Table 2 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, within 10 flight
cycles after the effective date of this AD, perform a USI of the HPT
2nd-stage disk using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 7,
of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02JY21.001

    (3) If, during the USI required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of
this AD, an HPT 1st-stage disk or HPT 2nd-stage disk does not pass
the USI as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph
8., of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, Revision 1, before further
flight, remove the HPT 1st-stage disk or 2nd-stage disk, as
applicable, from service and replace with a part eligible for
installation.

(h) Definition

    For the purpose for this AD, a ``part eligible for
installation'' is:
    (1) An HPT 1st-stage disk or HPT 2nd-stage disk listed in
Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713, or
Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2, of IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015, dated
December 15, 2020 (IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015) that has passed the
USI as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 8.,
of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713 or NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015, or
    (2) An HPT 1st-stage disk or HPT 2nd-stage disk that is not
listed in Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2, of IAE NMSB V2500-ENG-72-0713
or Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2, of IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in Related Information. You may email your request to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Alberto Hernandez,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
July 13, 2021 (86 FR 30380, June 8, 2021).
    (i) IAE Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) V2500-ENG-72-
0713, Revision 1, dated January 26, 2021.
    (ii) IAE NMSB V2500-E5-72-0015, dated December 15, 2020.
    (4) For International Aero Engines service information
identified in this AD, contact International Aero Engines AG, 400
Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website: http://fleetcare.pw.utc.com.
    (5) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section,

Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA
01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 18, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-14268 Filed 6-30-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31902-31903]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13607]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1001-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits tariff filing
per 154.204: May 2015 Deletion of Terminated Non-Conforming Agreements
to be effective 7/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2015.
    Accession Number: 20150527-5142.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 08, 2015.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1002-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. submits tariff
filing per 154.204: Volume No. 2--NRA--Direct Energy, Sequent and other
revisions to be effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2015.
    Accession Number: 20150527-5195.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 08, 2015.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1003-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.204: BUG 2015-06-01 Ramapo Release to be effective 6/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 05/28/2015.
    Accession Number: 20150528-5044.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 09, 2015.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1004-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.204: KeySpan 2015-06-01 Ramapo Release to be effective 6/1/
2015.
    Filed Date: 05/28/2015.
    Accession Number: 20150528-5046.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 09, 2015.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-1005-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.204: BBPC 2015-06-01 Releases to EDF Trading to be effective 6/
1/2015.
    Filed Date: 05/28/2015.
    Accession Number: 20150528-5056.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 09, 2015.

    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: May 28, 2015.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-13607 Filed 6-3-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8280-8281]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02891]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10005-01-OMS]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of Mission Support, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).

ACTION: Notice of a Modified System of Records.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Air
and Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ), is
giving notice that it proposes to modify the Engines and Vehicles--
Compliance Information System (EV-CIS), EPA-65 system of records
pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974. Engines and
Vehicles--Compliance Information System (EV-CIS) is being modified to
change the location of the electronic files. This system of records
contains personally identifiable information (PII) collected from
owners of motor vehicles who wish to temporarily import their vehicle
into the United States for personal use and who are not residents of
the United States.

DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this system of records notice must
do so by March 16, 2020. [New/Modified] routine uses for this [new/
modified] system of records will be effective March 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OMS-2019-
0149, by one of the following methods:
    Regulations.gov: www.regulations.gov Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
    Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: OMS Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: OMS Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OMS-2019-0149.
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Controlled
unclassified Information (CUI) or other information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CUI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov.
The www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system for
EPA, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. However,
over 179 federal agencies use www.regulations.gov and some may require
Personally Identifiable Information (PII) and some may not. Each agency
determines submission requirements within their own internal processes
and standards. EPA has no requirement of personal information. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment. If the EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about the EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CUI or other information

for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OMS
Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OMS Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Holly Pugliese, Compliance Division,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number:
734-214-4288; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is amending the Engine and Vehicle Exemptions System (EV-ES) of
records. The system name is being changed from EV-ES to the Engines and
Vehicles--Compliance Information System (EV-CIS). EV-ES is a subsystem
of the EV-CIS and is the only subsystem that stores personally
identifiable information (PII). The location of the files has changed
and are now stored in Research Triangle Park, NC. No other elements of
the systems of records has changed.
    The information collected in this system supports the Imports
Exemptions program under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and implementing
regulations codified in 40 CFR parts 85 and 1068. The CAA requires
manufacturers of motor vehicles and engines to design and build
vehicles that will comply with emissions standards throughout the
vehicle's life span. EPA and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
regulations (40 CFR part 85 and 19 CFR 12.73) allow for individuals who
are not residents of the United States and who reside outside of the
United States to import on-highway vehicles that do not comply with
U.S. emissions standards (e.g., cars, motorcycles or motor homes) for a
period of up to one year for personal use. Applicants are required to
provide their name, address, phone number or email and the vehicle
identification number (VIN) as part of the application process in order
for EPA to provide approval or denial letters to the requestors.
    The information that will be maintained regarding program
participants includes the vehicle owner's name, address, phone number,
email address and vehicle identification number (VIN). The electronic
information is contained in the EV-CIS system located in Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina and paper files at EPA's National Vehicle
and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Only contractor
employees and EPA employees administering the program have access to
the information contained in the database. Files containing personal
information are kept in locked filing cabinets. Physical access to the
filing cabinets is limited to authorized personnel employees with
building key cards.

SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:
    Engines and Vehicles--Compliance Information System (EV-CIS), EPA-
65

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:
    Unclassified.

SYSTEM LOCATION:
    US EPA, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
and EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor,
Michigan.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S):
     Sara Zaremski, Center Director, Data Analysis and Information
Center, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000 Traverwood, Ann
Arbor, MI 48105,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
HISTORY:
    79 FR 29761 (May 23, 2014)--Engine and Vehicle Exemptions System
(EV-ES). Creation of a Privacy Act system of records for the Engine and
Vehicle Exemptions System (EV-ES). The information collected in this
system supports the Imports Exemptions program under the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and implementing regulations codified in 40 CFR parts 85 and
1068.

    Dated: January 21, 2020.
Vaughn Noga,
Senior Agency Official for Privacy.
[FR Doc. 2020-02891 Filed 2-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P