[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78103-78105]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27707]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0918; FRL-10490-01-OCSPP]

Cumulative Risk Assessment; Science Advisory Committee on
Chemicals (SACC); Request for Nominations of ad hoc Expert Reviewers
and Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or ``Agency'') is
seeking public nominations of scientific and technical experts that EPA
can consider for service as ad hoc reviewers assisting the Science
Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) with the peer review of two
draft documents entitled: ``Draft Proposed Principles of Cumulative
Risk Assessment Under the Toxic Substances Control Act'' and ``Draft
Proposed Approach for Cumulative Risk Assessment of High-Priority
Phthalates and a Manufacturer Requested Phthalate Under the Toxic
Substance Control Act.'' The two draft documents will be submitted to
the SACC and released for public review and comment in late February
2023. EPA is also announcing the scheduling of a 4-day virtual public
meeting for the SACC to consider and review the two draft documents.

DATES: The following is a chronological listing of the dates for the
specific activities that are described in more detail under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    January 20, 2023--Deadline for submitting all nominations to EPA.
    April 24, 2023--Deadline for submitting a request for special
accommodations to allow EPA time to process the request before the
meeting.
    May 8 to 11, 2023, from 10:00 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m.
(ET)--The public virtual meeting will be held via a webcast platform
such as ``Zoom.gov'' and audio teleconference, and you must register to
receive the links.

ADDRESSES:
    Nominations: Submit your nominations to the Designated Federal
Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Special accommodations: For information on meeting access or
services for individuals with disabilities, and to request
accommodation for a disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact the DFO, Dr. Alaa Kamel,
Mission Support Division, Office of Program Support, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> or call the SACC main office at (202)
564-8450; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    The Agency is seeking public nominations of scientific and
technical experts that EPA can consider for service as ad hoc reviewers
assisting the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) with the
peer review of two draft documents entitled: ``Draft Proposed
Principles of Cumulative Risk Assessment Under the Toxic Substances
Control Act'' and ``Draft Proposed Approach for Cumulative Risk
Assessment of High-Priority Phthalates and a Manufacturer Requested
Phthalate Under the Toxic Substance Control Act.'' EPA is also
announcing the scheduling of a 4-day virtual public meeting for the
SACC to consider and review the two draft documents. EPA will be
soliciting comments from the SACC on the two draft documents on issues
related to chemical grouping for purposes of CRA, health outcomes
related to phthalate syndrome, and possible approaches to developing
the cumulative hazard and exposure assessment for High-Priority
phthalates and a Manufacturer-Requested phthalate.
    This document provides instructions for submitting nominations for
ad hoc reviewers, requesting special accommodations for the virtual
public meeting, and accessing the materials provided to the SACC. EPA
will publish a separate document in the Federal Register in late
February 2023 to announce the availability of and solicit public
comment on the two draft documents, and instructions for submitting
comments, and registering to provide oral comments.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    The SACC was established by EPA in 2016 in accordance with the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 26(o), 15 U.S.C. 2625(o),
as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st
Century Act, Public Law 114-182, June 22, 2016, to provide independent
advice and expert consultation, at the request of the Administrator,
with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of issues relating
to the implementation of TSCA. The SACC operates in accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. appendix 2 et seq., and
supports activities under the TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., the
Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., and other
applicable statutes.

C. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those involved in the manufacture,
processing, distribution, and disposal of chemical substances and
mixtures, and/or those interested in the assessment of risks involving
chemical substances and mixtures regulated under TSCA. Since other
entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

D. What should I consider as I submit my nominations to EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI or other sensitive information
to EPA through https://www.regulations.gov or email. If your nomination
contains any information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT to obtain special instructions before submitting that
information. For inclusion in the public docket, please submit a copy
of the nomination that does not contain the information you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected.
    2. Tips for preparing comments. When preparing and submitting your
comments, see Tips for Effective Comments at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Nominations for ad hoc Reviewers

A. What is the purpose of the SACC?

    The SACC provides independent scientific advice and recommendations
to the EPA on the scientific and technical aspects of risk assessments,
methodologies, and pollution prevention measures and approaches for
chemicals regulated under TSCA. The SACC is comprised of experts in
toxicology; environmental risk assessment; exposure assessment; and
related sciences (e.g., synthetic biology, pharmacology, biotechnology,
nanotechnology, biochemistry, biostatistics, physiologically based
pharmacokinetic modelling (PBPK), computational toxicology,
epidemiology, environmental fate, and environmental engineering and
sustainability). The SACC currently consists of 17 members. When
needed, the committee will be assisted by ad hoc reviewers with
specific expertise in the topics under consideration.

B. Why is EPA seeking nominations for ad hoc reviewers?

    As part of a broader process for developing a pool of candidates
for SACC peer reviews, EPA is asking the public and stakeholder
communities for nominations of scientific and technical experts that
EPA can consider as prospective candidates for service as ad hoc
reviewers assisting the SACC with the peer reviews. Any interested
person or organization may nominate qualified individuals for
consideration as prospective candidates for this review by following
the instructions provided in this document. Individuals may also self-
nominate.
    Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates will
be invited to attend the public meeting and to participate in the
discussion of key issues and assumptions at the meeting. In addition,
they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes.

C. What expertise is sought for this peer review?

    Individuals nominated for this SACC peer review, should have
expertise in one or more of the following areas: Chemical mixtures risk
assessment (especially with experience using dose additive component-
based mixtures approaches, including relative potency factors); mode of
action (MOA); phthalate toxicology; male reproductive toxicology;
exposure assessment (occupational, consumer, and general population
exposure); biomonitoring data; and biostatistics. Nominees should be
scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including
training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments on
the scientific issues for this review.

D. How do I make a nomination?

    By the deadline indicated under DATES, submit your nomination to
the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Each nomination
should include the following information: Contact information for the
person making the nomination; name, affiliation, and contact
information for the nominee; and the disciplinary and specific areas of
expertise of the nominee.

E. Will ad hoc reviewers be subjected to an ethics review?

    SACC members and ad hoc reviewers are subject to the provisions of
the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch
at 5 CFR part 2635, conflict of interest statutes in title 18 of the
United States Code and related regulations. In anticipation of this
requirement, prospective candidates for service on the SACC will be
asked to submit confidential financial information which shall fully
disclose, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment,
stocks and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support.
EPA will evaluate the candidates' financial disclosure forms to assess
whether there are financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a loss
of impartiality, or any prior involvement with the development of the
documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer
review) before the candidate is considered further for service on the
SACC.

F. How will EPA select the ad hoc reviewers?

    The selection of scientists to serve as ad hoc reviewers for the
SACC is based on the function of the Committee and the expertise needed
to address the Agency's charge to the Committee. No interested
scientists shall be ineligible to serve by reason of their membership
on any other advisory committee to a federal department or agency or
their employment by a federal department or agency, except EPA. Other
factors considered during the selection process include availability of
the prospective candidate to fully participate in the Committee's
reviews, absence of any conflicts of interest or appearance of loss of
impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under review,
and lack of bias. Although financial conflicts of interest, the
appearance of loss of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may
result in non-selection, the absence of such concerns does not assure
that a candidate will be selected to serve on the SACC.
    Numerous qualified candidates are often identified for SACC
reviews. Therefore, selection decisions involve carefully weighing a
number of factors including the candidates' areas of expertise and
professional qualifications and achieving an overall balance of
different scientific perspectives across reviewers. The Agency will
consider all nominations of prospective candidates for service as ad
hoc reviewers for the SACC that are received on or before the date
listed in the DATES section of this document. However, final selection
of ad hoc reviewers is a discretionary function of the Agency. At this
time, EPA anticipates selecting approximately 8-12 ad hoc reviewers to
assist the SACC in their review of the designated topic.
    EPA plans to make a list of candidates under consideration as
prospective ad hoc reviewers for this review available for public
comment by mid to late February 2023. The list will be available in the
docket at http://www.regulations.gov (docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2022-0918) and on the

SACC website. You may also subscribe to the following listserv for
alerts regarding this and other SACC-related activities: https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USAEPAOPPT/subscriber/new?topic_id=USAEPAOPPT_101.

III. Virtual Public Meeting of the SACC

A. What is the purpose of this public meeting?

    The focus of the 4-day virtual public meeting is the SACC peer
review of the following two draft documents:
     Draft Proposed Principles of Cumulative Risk Assessment
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act; and
     Draft Proposed Approach for Cumulative Risk Assessment of
High-Priority Phthalates and a Manufacturer Requested Phthalate Under
the Toxic Substance Control Act.
    EPA will be soliciting comments from the SACC on issues related to
chemical grouping for purposes of Cumulative Risk Assessment (CRA),
health outcomes related to phthalate syndrome, and possible approaches
to developing the cumulative hazard and exposure assessment for High-
Priority phthalates and a Manufacturer-Requested phthalate. In
addition, EPA intends to publish a separate document in the Federal
Register to announce the availability of and solicit public comment on
the two draft documents, at which time EPA will provide instructions
for submitting comments and registering to provide oral comments at the
meeting. EPA also intends to provide a meeting agenda for each day of
the meeting, and, as needed, may provide updated times for each day in
the meeting agenda that will be posted in docket and on the SACC
website.

B. Why did EPA develop these documents?

    Between 2020 and 2022 EPA published final scoping documents for
twenty High-Priority and three Manufacturer-Requested chemical
substances for risk evaluation under TSCA. During the scoping process,
EPA received comments from stakeholders urging the Agency to consider
evaluating several chemical substances undergoing risk evaluation for
cumulative risk to human health. TSCA does not explicitly require EPA
to conduct cumulative risk assessments (CRAs). However, TSCA does
require EPA to consider the reasonably available information and to use
the best available science and to make decisions based on the weight of
scientific evidence [15 U.S.C. 2625(h), (i), (k)]. EPA recognizes that
for some chemical substances, the best available science may indicate
that the development of a CRA is appropriate to ensure that any risks
to human health and the environment are adequately characterized.
    1. Proposed principles of CRAs under TSCA. EPA's document entitled
``Draft Proposed Principles of Cumulative Risk Assessment Under the
Toxic Substances Control Act'' will describe the fundamental principles
of CRA of chemical substances and how they may be applied within the
regulatory requirements of TSCA to ensure TSCA risk evaluations are
based on the best available science and are protective of human health.
This draft document is not intended to be a framework nor a guidance
document on conducting CRAs of chemical substances under TSCA, and it
will not address cumulative impacts.
    2. Proposed approach for a CRA of phthalates under TSCA.
Recognizing that human exposure to phthalates is widespread and that
multiple phthalates can disrupt development of the male reproductive
system in laboratory animals at potentially human relevant doses, EPA
asked the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies of
Science to review the health effects of phthalates and determine
whether a cumulative risk assessment of phthalates should be conducted,
and if so, what approaches could be used for the assessment. In 2008,
NRC published their findings to EPA in a final report entitled
``Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Task Ahead'' (https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NCEA&dirEntryId=202508). In that
report, the NRC recommended that a cumulative risk assessment should be
conducted for phthalates. EPA's document entitled ``Draft Proposed
Approach for Cumulative Risk Assessment of High-Priority Phthalates and
a Manufacturer Requested Phthalate Under the Toxic Substance Control
Act'' will describe EPA's proposed approach for evaluating a subset of
High-Priority and Manufacturer-Requested phthalates for cumulative risk
to human health under TSCA based on the principles of CRA described in
EPA's draft principles document referenced previously. EPA's draft
proposed approach will follow many of the recommendations made by the
NRC in 2008. This draft document is not a CRA, and no risk estimates
are presented. Instead, this draft document will outline several
options EPA is considering for conducting a phthalate CRA under TSCA.

C. How can I access the documents submitted for review to the SACC?

    EPA is planning to release the two draft documents mentioned above
and all background documents, related supporting materials, and draft
charge questions provided to the SACC by late February 2023. At that
time, EPA will publish a separate document in the Federal Register to
announce the availability of and solicit public comment on the two
draft documents and provide instructions for submitting comments and
registering to provide oral comments. These materials will also be
available in the docket through https://www.regulations.gov (docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0918) and the SACC website. In addition, as
additional background materials become available and are provided to
the SACC, EPA will include those additional background documents (e.g.,
SACC members and consultants participating in this meeting and the
meeting agenda) in the docket and on the SACC website.

D. How can I participate in the virtual public meeting?

    The public virtual meeting will be held via a webcast platform such
as ``Zoom.gov'' and audio teleconference. You must register online to
receive the webcast meeting link and audio teleconference information.
Please follow the registration instructions that will be announced on
the SACC website in February. You may subscribe to the following
listserv for alerts regarding this and other SACC-related activities:
https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USAEPAOPPT/subscriber/new?topic_id=USAEPAOPPT_101.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2625(o); 5 U.S.C. appendix 2 et. seq.

    Dated: December 16, 2022.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-27707 Filed 12-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 97 (Monday, May 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23235-23236]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10367]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL17-74-000; QF90-73-003]

EF Kenilworth LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on May 12, 2017, pursuant to section 292.205(c) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 292.205(c)(2016) implementing the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), as amended, EF
Kenilworth LLC (petitioner) filed a petition for declaratory order
requesting a waiver of the efficiency and operating standards for its
qualifying cogeneration facility located at the Merck Sharp & Dohme
Corp. (Merck) manufacturing and processing facility in Kenilworth,

New Jersey for calendar years 2016, 2017 and 2018 due to a decrease in
steam consumption by the Kenilworth Facility's thermal host, as more
fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding
must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice
of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 12, 2017.

    Dated: May 16, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-10367 Filed 5-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Figure III. B 1: Characteristic NOx of In Production Enginesa, b 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Overall Engine Pressure Ratio  OPR Dp/ Foo NOx Characteristic  g/ kN A E B R C G E In E K P W R T L CAEP/ 2 Standard CAEP/ 4 Standard PW JT8D 219 E kit PW JT8D 217C E kit PW 4090 PW 4084D PW 4168A PW 4168 PW 4077D PW 4164 a, b 50 Allison Engine BMW Roll Royce CFM Int.

General Electric Int. Aero Engines KKBM Pratt & Whitney Rolls Royce Textron Lycoming


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 6, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-16945

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Joint Application of COMPANIA MEXICANA DE AVIACION, S.A. DE C.V.
(MEXICANA) AND AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. (AMERICAN), filed 8/3/05 for:

XX  Exemption for American under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Los Angeles, California, and Mazatlan, Mexico, and to integrate
this authority with its existing certificate and exemption authority.
American intends to operate this service pursuant to a code-share
arrangement with Mexicana, whereby the “AA” designator code will be
placed on flights operated by Mexicana in this market.  The joint
applicants request that the exemption authority be granted for a period
co-extensive with the exemptions granted previously to American in the
instant docket (through April 29, 2006).

XX  Statement of authorization for Mexicana under 14 CFR Part 212 to:

Display American’s “AA” designator code on flights operated by
Mexicana between Los Angeles and Mazatlan.

Applicant reps: Carl B. Nelson, Jr. (American)<PHONE_NUMBER> and
Charles F. Donley II (Mexicana)<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:   Thuy H. Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action granting new exemption authority to American was
effective when taken:

September 6, 2005, through April 29, 2006.

The above action granting an amended statement of authorization to
Mexicana was effective when taken: September 6, 2005, and will remain in
effect indefinitely, subject to the conditions below.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, the exemption authority granted
above is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

	XX   American’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	XX   Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:   The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  The exemption authority granted to American is
limited to services provided on a code-share basis only.

The route integration authority granted to American is subject to the
condition that any service provided under this authority shall be
consistent with the applicable bilateral aviation agreements between the
United States and the foreign countries involved.  Furthermore, (a)
nothing in the award of the route integration authority granted should
be construed as conferring upon American rights (including code-share,
fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where
U.S. carrier entry is limited unless American notifies the Department of
its intent to serve such a market and unless and until the Department
has completed any necessary carrier selection procedures to determine
which carrier(s) should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b)
should there be a request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route
rights that are included in American’s authority by virtue of the
route integration authority granted here, but that are not then being
used by American, the holding of such authority will not be considered
as providing any preference for American in a competitive carrier
selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to
use the authority at issue.

The Statement of Authorization granted to Mexicana is subject to the
following conditions:

(a) The statement of authorization will remain in effect only as long as
American (and its affiliates) and Mexicana continue to hold the
underlying authority to operate the code-share services at issue, and
the code-share agreement providing for the code-share operations remains
in effect.

(b) American (and its affiliates) and/or Mexicana must promptly notify
the Department (Office of International Aviation) if the code-share
agreement is no longer effective or if the carriers decide to cease
operating all or a portion of the approved code-share services. (Such
notice should be filed in Docket OST-2004-16945.)

(c) The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must
comply with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendment to the Department’s
regulations concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.
Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our
approval here is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the
subject foreign air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier
holding out such service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere;
that the carrier selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on
the ticket) accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share
journey for all obligations established in its contract of carriage with
the passenger; and that the passenger liability of the operating carrier
be unaffected.

(d) The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that
neither American (and its affiliates) nor Mexicana shall give any force
or effect to any contractual provisions between themselves that are
contrary to these conditions.

________________________________________________________________________
____

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found American qualified to provide the
exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										  05/2004

 The joint applicants include American affiliates American Eagle
Airlines, Inc., and Executive Airlines, Inc. d/b/a American Eagle.

 Mexicana holds Mazatlan-Los Angeles operating authority pursuant to its
foreign air carrier permit. (See Order 78-6-127)

 We expect this notification to be received within 10 days of such
non-effectiveness or of such decision.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47449-47450]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18761]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70076; File No. SR-OCC-2013-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1,
To Separate the Powers and Duties Currently Combined in the Office of
OCC's Chairman Into Two Offices, Chairman and President, and Create an
Additional Directorship To Be Occupied by the President

July 30, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On June 4, 2013 The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change SR-OCC-2013-09 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\2\ On June 10, 2013, OCC filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\3\ The proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the Federal Register on
June 21, 2013.\4\ The Commission received no comment letters. For the
reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 corrects an administrative oversight related
to a sentence reference in OCC's Certificate of Incorporation.
    \4\ Release No. 34-69771 (June 17, 2013), 78 FR 37640 (June 21,
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description

    The purpose of this rule change is to provide for separation of the
powers and duties currently combined in the office of OCC's Chairman of
the Board of Directors into two offices, Chairman \5\ and President,
and create an additional directorship to be occupied by the President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to Article IV, Section 6, of OCC's By-Laws, the
Chairman of the Board is also the Executive Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal Overview

    In the course of OCC's review of the structure of the Board of
Directors, OCC determined that dividing the powers and duties of the
Chairman of the Board into two positions, Chairman and President, would
enhance oversight of OCC management by making the Chairman independent
of most management functions. Pursuant to the rule change, the Chairman
will be responsible for oversight of: (i) The control functions of OCC,
including enterprise risk management, internal audit and compliance;
(ii) external affairs; and (iii) presiding at all meetings of OCC's
Board of Directors and OCC's stockholders. The President will report to
the Chairman and be responsible for all aspects of OCC's business that
do not report directly to the Chairman. Under OCC's rule change, OCC's
President, who will also serve as Chief Executive Officer, will focus
on the effectiveness of OCC's day-to-day operations, as well as
strategic initiatives for the future.
    OCC expects that the Chairman's direct oversight of control
functions will increase independence by limiting management's influence
over such functions. In addition, OCC notes that the significance of
these control functions for a clearing agency warrants full-time
oversight, which can only be provided by an executive of OCC.
    To reflect the above changes in its governance structure, OCC will
revise Section 7 of Article III of its By-Laws to include OCC's
President as a Management Director, along with OCC's Chairman.\6\ OCC
will also revise Article IV of its By-Laws to include references to the
President in certain provisions governing OCC's officers.\7\ OCC will
also amend Articles IV and V of its Certificate of Incorporation to
reflect the existence of an additional Management Director. Finally,
OCC will also amend Sections 2 and 3 of the Stockholders Agreement to
provide for the election of the President, in addition to the Chairman,
as a Management Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Sections 1, 7 and 12 of Article III will also be amended to
reflect the existence of an additional Management Director.
Furthermore, OCC will amend Section 15 of Article III to grant the
President the same authority to act in the case of an emergency as
the Chairman and, consequently, OCC will remove the President as one
of the ``Designated Officers'' to whom such authority would devolve
if certain enumerated officers are unavailable.
    \7\ The amended Section 1 of Article IV will include the
President, along with the Chairman, as an officer required to be
elected by the Board of Directors. Section 8 of Article IV, as
amended, will no longer give the Board the option of electing a
President, but will make such office required. Sections 6 and 8 of
Article IV will be amended to specify the duties of the Chairman and
President, respectively. Sections 2, 3, and 13 of Article IV will be
amended to give the President power, like the Chairman, to appoint
and remove certain officers and agents to carry out the functions
assigned to him and may determine the salaries of these appointees
and agents. Sections 7 and 9 will be amended to add references to
the President, in addition to the Chairman, when referencing the
highest-ranking officers of OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Timeframe

    OCC will notify members of the date on which it intends to
implement the rule change through the posting of an information memo on
the OCC Web site. The change will not take effect until such date OCC
designates as the date of implementation. OCC expects to implement the
rule change no later than December 31, 2013.

III. Discussion

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act \8\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to such organization. Section 17A(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\
requires that a clearing agency that is registered with the Commission
be organized and have the capacity to be able to, among other things,
facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the rule change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ because by separating the powers
and duties currently combined in the office of OCC's Chairman into two
offices, the rule change should enhance oversight of management by
ensuring that the Chairman is independent of most management functions
and that the separation of powers and duties over OCC operations is not
overly concentrated in the hands of a single individual, thereby
promoting greater accountability of management to the Board of
Directors. In so doing, OCC's rule change should improve its corporate
governance structure and provide for an appropriate checks and balance
between oversight by OCC's Board of Directors and OCC management of
day-to-day operations, which in turn, should facilitate the prompt and
accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.

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

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in
particular with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \11\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\12\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2013-09) be and
hereby is APPROVED.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \13\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-18761 Filed 8-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 41792-41793]
[DOCID:fr24jy06-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER06-1018-000; ER06-1018-001]

Power Hedging Dynamics, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

July 13, 2006.
    Power Hedging Dynamics, LLC (Power Hedging) filed an application
for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate schedule.
The proposed market-based rate schedule provides for the sale of energy
and capacity at market-based rates. Power Hedging also requested
waivers of various Commission regulations. In particular, Power Hedging
requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part
34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability
by Power Hedging.
    On July 13, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part

34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish
a separate notice in the Federal Register establishing a period of time
for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be
heard or to protest the blanket approvals of issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability by Power Hedging should file a motion to
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR
385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is August 14, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Power Hedging is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations
or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in
respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance
or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes
of Power Hedging, compatible with the public interest, and is
reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Power Hedging's issuances of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-11652 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2715-2716]
[FR Doc No: 2012-907]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP12-39-000]

D'Lo Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on December 29, 2011, D'Lo Gas Storage, LLC
(D'Lo), 1002 East St. Mary Blvd., Lafayette, Louisiana 70503, filed in
Docket No. CP12-39-000, an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's Regulations,
requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity
authorizing D'Lo to construct, operate, and maintain a new natural gas
storage project to be located in Simpson County, Mississippi.
Additionally, D'Lo requests a blanket certificate under part 284,
Subpart G, of the Commission's regulations, to provide open-access non-
discriminatory firm interruptible natural gas storage services and hub
services, and a blanket certificate authorizing D'Lo to engage in
certain self-implementing routine activities under Part 157, Subpart F
of the Commission's regulations. D'Lo also requests through this
application approval of its pro forma FERC Gas Tariff and authority to
charge market-based rates for storage and hub services, all as more
fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the
Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed
on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Specifically, D'Lo proposes to construct a natural gas storage
facility in the D'Lo Salt Dome underground that will provide
approximately 24 billion cubic feet of working gas capacity in three
caverns. D'Lo will construct five sites for pipeline interconnections
and metering with interstate and intrastate gas pipeline systems.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to J.
Gordon Pennington, 2707 N. Kensington St., Arlington, VA 22207,
telephone no.<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile no.<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for

review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.
There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the web site that enables
subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a
subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 1, 2012.

    Dated: January 11, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-907 Filed 1-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44733]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1089]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On May 25, 2010, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that included
modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) for the
locations along Black Bayou Lake, Canal L-11, East Branch Oliver Road
Canal, Oliver Road Canal, and West Prong Youngs Bayou in Ouachita
Parish, Louisiana. FEMA is no longer proposing these flood elevation
determination changes along Black Bayou Lake, Canal L-11, East Branch
Oliver Road Canal, Oliver Road Canal, and West Prong Youngs Bayou as
identified in the above-referenced rulemaking publication.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before September 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1089, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA publishes proposed determinations of
BFEs and modified BFEs for communities participating in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are
used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.

Correction

    In the proposed rule published at 75 FR 29219, in the May 25, 2010,
issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table on page 29229
under the authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled ``Ouachita
Parish, Louisiana, and Incorporated Areas,'' addressed several flooding
sources, including Black Bayou Lake, Canal L-11, East Branch Oliver
Road Canal, Oliver Road Canal, and West Prong Youngs Bayou. The
proposed rule listed modified BFEs for Black Bayou Lake, Canal L-11,
East Branch Oliver Road Canal, Oliver Road Canal, and West Prong Youngs
Bayou between specific upstream and downstream locations listed in the
table. FEMA is no longer proposing these flood elevation determination
changes along Black Bayou Lake, Canal L-11, East Branch Oliver Road
Canal, Oliver Road Canal, and West Prong Youngs Bayou as identified in
the above-referenced rulemaking publication.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: July 11, 2014.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-18086 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22859-22865]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10464]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0604, 0606, 0607, 0609, 0611 and 0612; FRL-9978-14-
OLEM]

National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``the 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 rule adds six sites to the General Superfund section
of the NPL.

DATES: The document is effective on June 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
     Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue NW,
William Jefferson Clinton Building West, Room 3334, Washington, DC
20004, 202/566-0276.
    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 Murray, 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.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What is the NCP?
    C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
    E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
    G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
    H. May 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?
II. Availability of Information to the Public
    A. May I review the documents relevant to this final rule?
    B. What documents are available for review at the EPA
Headquarters docket?
    C. What documents are available for review at the EPA regional
dockets?

    D. How do I access the documents?
    E. How may I obtain a current list of NPL sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
    A. Additions to the NPL
    B. What did the EPA do with the public comments it received?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    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
    L. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

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

B. What is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, 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 of only 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) 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 a permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition
to removal actions'' (40 CFR 300.5). 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.
    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 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 between the EPA and states and
tribes where applicable, is available on the EPA's website at http://semspub.epa.gov/src/document/HQ/174024.

II. Availability of Information to the Public

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

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

                                      Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Site name                           City/County, State                      Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hockessin Groundwater.................  Hockessin, DE...........................  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0604.
Franklin Street Groundwater             Spencer, IN.............................  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0606.
 Contamination.
Spring Park Municipal Well Field......  Spring Park, MN.........................  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0607.
Burlington Industries Cheraw..........  Cheraw, SC..............................  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0609.
Lane Plating Works, Inc...............  Dallas, TX..............................  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0611.
River City Metal Finishing............  San Antonio, TX.........................  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0612.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The headquarters docket for this rule contains the HRS score
sheets, the documentation record describing the information used to
compute the score and a list of documents referenced in the
documentation record for each site.

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

    The EPA regional dockets contain all the information in the
headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the
data principally relied upon by the EPA in calculating or evaluating
the HRS score. These reference documents are available only in the
regional dockets.

D. How do I access the documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the
publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the headquarters
docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding federal holidays. Please contact the regional dockets for
hours. For addresses for the headquarters and regional dockets, see
Addresses section in the beginning portion of this preamble.

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

    You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the internet at
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/national-priorities-list-npl-sites-site-name or by contacting the Superfund docket (see contact information in
the beginning portion of this document).

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Additions to the NPL

    This final rule adds the following six sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL. These sites are being added to the NPL
based on HRS score.
    General Superfund section:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             State                     Site name           City/County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE............................  Hockessin Groundwater.  Hockessin.
IN............................  Franklin Street         Spencer.
                                 Groundwater
                                 Contamination.
MN............................  Spring Park Municipal   Spring Park.
                                 Well Field.
SC............................  Burlington Industries   Cheraw.
                                 Cheraw.
TX............................  Lane Plating Works,     Dallas.
                                 Inc.
TX............................  River City Metal        San Antonio.
                                 Finishing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule
and responded to all relevant comments. The EPA is adding six sites to
the NPL in this final rule. All six sites were proposed for NPL
addition on January 18, 2018 (83 FR 2576). The sites are: Hockessin
Groundwater in Hockessin, DE; Franklin Street Groundwater Contamination
in Spencer, IN; Spring Park Municipal Well Field in Spring Park, MN;
Burlington Industries Cheraw in Cheraw, SC; Lane Plating Works, Inc. in
Dallas, TX; and, River City Metal Finishing in San Antonio, TX.

    Comments on the Franklin Street Groundwater Contamination site are
being addressed in a response to comment support document available in
the public docket concurrently with this rule.
    For the Hockessin Groundwater site, the EPA received several
comments supporting NPL listing, several comments unrelated to NPL
listing and two anonymous comments questioning site investigation and
interim mitigation measures, timing of cleanup actions and potential
remedies. In response, EPA is adding the site to the NPL as the best
way to ensure that cleanup proceeds in a timely manner. NPL listing
makes a site eligible for remedial action funding under CERCLA. The
site will be further investigated during the remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS) phase of the Superfund process to determine
what response, if any, is appropriate to ensure protection of public
health and the environment.
    The EPA received no comments on the Spring Park Muncipal Well Field
site.
    The EPA received one comment from a community member regarding the
Burlington Industries Cheraw site. The commenter expressed their
opposition to NPL listing based on concerns that listing may negatively
affect their property value. Economic factors such as those raised by
the commenter are generally not considered in the assessment of whether
a site belongs on the NPL. The EPA notes that there are both costs and
benefits that can be associated with listing a site. Among the benefits
are increased health and environmental protection as a result of
increased public awareness of potential hazards. In addition to the
potential for federally financed remedial actions, the addition of a
site to the NPL could accelerate privately financed, voluntary cleanup
efforts. Listing sites as national priority targets also may give
states increased support for funding responses at particular sites. As
a result of the additional CERCLA remedies, there will be lower human
exposure to high-risk chemicals, and higher quality surface water,
ground water, soil, and air. Therefore, it is possible that any
perceived or actual negative fluctuations in property values or
development opportunities that may result from contamination may also
be countered by positive fluctuations when a CERCLA investigation and
any necessary cleanup are completed.
    For the Lane Plating Works, Inc. site, the EPA received only one
comment related to NPL listing. The comment, submitted by the city of
Dallas' Office of Environmental Quality, supports NPL listing in order
to facilitate federal funding for full and complete remediation.
    The EPA received two comments supporting the NPL listing of the
River City Metal Finishing site, one from a community member and one
from a student.

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

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.

L. Congressional Review Act

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
    Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of
CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C.
801(b)(1), a rule shall not take effect, or continue in effect, if
Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint resolution of
disapproval, described under section 802. Another statutory provision
that may affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, which provides for a
legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS
v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983), and Bd. of Regents of
the University of Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir.
1996), cast the validity of the legislative veto into question, the EPA
has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
    If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305
calls the effective date of this regulation into question, the EPA will
publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Dated: May 9, 2018.
Barry N. Breen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency
Management.

    40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

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

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3CFR, 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 amended by adding entries for
``Hockessin Groundwater'', ``Franklin Street Groundwater
Contamination'', ``Spring Park Municipal Well Field'', ``Burlington
Industries Cheraw'', ``Lane Plating Works, Inc.'', and ``River City
Metal Finishing'' in alphabetical order by state to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                                       Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               State                        Site name             City/County                 Notes (a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
DE.................................  Hockessin Groundwater.  Hockessin............  ............................

                                                  * * * * * * *
IN.................................  Franklin Street         Spencer..............  ............................
                                      Groundwater
                                      Contamination.

                                                  * * * * * * *
MN.................................  Spring Park Municipal   Spring Park..........  ............................
                                      Well Field.

                                                  * * * * * * *
SC.................................  Burlington Industries   Cheraw...............  ............................
                                      Cheraw.

                                                  * * * * * * *
TX.................................  Lane Plating Works,     Dallas...............  ............................
                                      Inc.

                                                  * * * * * * *
TX.................................  River City Metal        San Antonio..........  ............................
                                      Finishing.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(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. 2018-10464 Filed 5-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P