[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 172 (Thursday, September 9, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50477-50483]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19193]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0394, 0395, 0396 and 0397; FRL-8887-01-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 four sites to the General Superfund section
of the NPL.

DATES: The document is effective on October 12, 2021.

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.
     James Desir, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4342.
     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.
     Sandra Bramble, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN),
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/
562-8926.
     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.
     Michelle Delgado-Brown, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX),
U.S. EPA, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Mailcode SED, Dallas, TX 75270;
214/665-3154.
     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.
     Eugenia Chow, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
415/972-3160.
     Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 155, Mailcode 12-D12-1, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/890-0591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (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#reuse.

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 https://www.epa.gov/superfund/statetribal-correspondence-concerning-npl-site-listing.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cherokee Zinc--Weir Smelter..........  Weir, KS...............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0394
Billings PCE.........................  Billings, MT...........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0395
Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc..........  Franklinville, NJ......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0396
Northwest Odessa Groundwater.........  Odessa, TX.............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2020-0397
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, a list of documents referenced in the documentation
record for each site and any other information used to support the NPL
listing of the 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 four sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL. These sites are being added to the NPL
based on an HRS score of 28.50 or above.

                                            General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                                Site name                          City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS.......................................  Cherokee Zinc--Weir Smelter......  Weir.
MT.......................................  Billings PCE.....................  Billings.
NJ.......................................  Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc......  Franklinville.
TX.......................................  Northwest Odessa Groundwater.....  Odessa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 four sites to
the NPL in this final rule. All four sites were proposed for addition
to the NPL on September 3, 2020 (85 FR 54970).
    The EPA received two comments on the proposal of the Cherokee Zinc-
Weir Smelter site. One of the commenters indicated that they would like
to see liability for cleanup assigned at the listing stage and
questions the addition of liability concerns to the Superfund NPL
process. Liability is not considered in evaluating a site under the
HRS. The NPL serves primarily as an informational tool for use by the
EPA in identifying those sites that appear to present a significant
risk to public health or the environment. Listing a site on the NPL
does not reflect a judgment on the activities of the owner(s) or
operator(s) of a site. It does not require those persons to undertake
any action, nor does it assign any liability to any person. This
position, stated in the legislative history of CERCLA, has been
explained more fully in the Federal Register (48 FR 40658, September 8,
1983, and 53 FR 23988, June 24, 1988). In addition to the comment
regarding liability, there was one comment that is not related to the
proposal of the site.
    The EPA received one comment on the Billings PCE site regarding the
site address and description of the site. The commenter asserted that
the site address appeared limited to the Big Sky Linen facility despite
the multiple possible sources identified in supporting material. The
commenter stated that the EPA should revise the HRS documentation
record and the site summary to reflect the multiple possible sources of
contamination associated with the site. The EPA has revised the street
address for the Billings PCE site at promulgation to the intersection
of 3rd St. W and Miles Ave., Billings, Montana, the approximate center
of the area of observed exposure. The EPA has also revised the HRS
documentation record at promulgation to include the new site address.
    Additionally, while not commented on, the EPA noted that the
trichloroethylene benchmark concentrations shown in HRS documentation
record Table 17 contain truncated values and are inconsistent with
those documented in Reference 2 of the HRS supporting documentation.
The EPA has revised the HRS documentation record at promulgation to:
Include the corrected benchmark concentrations in Table 17; remove from
Table 17 3 samples whose trichloroethylene concentrations fall below
the corrected benchmarks; and adjust the Level I concentrations, Level
II concentrations, and population factor values and targets factor
category value accordingly. Based on these corrections, the subsurface
intrusion component score and HRS site score remain unchanged.
    The EPA received one comment on the Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc
site expressing concern for environmental justice and air pollution
impacts on minority communities but did not express support or
opposition to listing the site.
    The EPA received two comments supporting the listing of the
Northwest Odessa Groundwater site, with one commenter expressing
concerns regarding the health impacts of the plume and the other
expressing concern that the groundwater plume is spreading and
impacting nearby mixed commercial and residential areas. One additional
comment was a duplicate of the comment submitted on the Pioneer Metal
Finishing Inc site.

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 (CRA)

    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 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: August 31, 2021.
Barry N. Breen,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency
Management.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
300, of the Code of Federal Regulations 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. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.

0
2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300 is amended by adding the entries
for ``KS,'' ``Cherokee Zinc--Weir Smelter'', ``MT,'' ``Billings PCE'',
``NJ,'' ``Pioneer Metal Finishing Inc'', and ``TX'', ``Northwest Odessa
Groundwater'' 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\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
 KS................................   Cherokee Zinc--Weir          Weir.................
                                      Smelter.

                                                  * * * * * * *
 MT................................   Billings PCE..............   Billings.............

                                                  * * * * * * *
 NJ................................   Pioneer Metal Finishing      Franklinville........
                                      Inc.

                                                  * * * * * * *
 TX................................   Northwest Odessa             Odessa...............
                                      Groundwater.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. 2021-19193 Filed 9-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32099-32101]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14199]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2019 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0536; Product Identifier 2018-CE-054-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-
H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2,
PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, PC-6/C1-H2, PC-6-H1, and PC-6-H2 airplanes. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as rudder shaft assemblies with
incorrect rivet configuration. The FAA is proposing this AD to require
actions that address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 19,
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
PILATUS Aircraft Ltd., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992,
CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41
exception occurred on : 2019-14199.htm
exception occurred on : 2019-14199.htm
619 67 73; email: aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; internet: http://
www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review this referenced service
information at the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0536; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No.FAA-2019-0536;
Product Identifier 2018-CE-054-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. The
FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this proposed AD because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
received about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2018-0222, dated October 19, 2018 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    During a recent check flight with a PC-6, the pilot experienced
loss of rudder control. The consequent precautionary landing
resulted in a runway excursion and damage to the aeroplane, but
without serious injuries to the occupants. The post-event inspection
of the affected rudder shaft assembly found an incorrect rivet
configuration. Subsequent investigation results identified that the
tapered pins had been replaced with an insufficient quantity of
rivets of unknown origin, which effectively constituted a
modification that does not conform to any of the three different
Pilatus-approved configurations. Prompted by this event, five more
aeroplanes were inspected and various non-standard rivet
configurations were found in the same area. It cannot be excluded
that more PC-6 aeroplanes have had a similar modification applied.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure or loss of rivets, possibly resulting in reduced control of
the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Pilatus Aircraft Ltd
issued the [service bulletin] SB to provide inspection instructions.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time inspection of the affected part to determine the rivet
configuration and, depending on findings, accomplishment of
applicable corrective action(s). This [EASA] AD also requires
inspection of affected parts held as spare, and depending on
findings, corrective action(s), prior to installation.

You may examine the MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0536.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) has issued Pilatus PC-6 Service
Bulletin No. 27-006, Rev. No. 1, dated September 4, 2018. The service
information contains procedures for inspecting the rivet

configuration on the rudder shaft assembly for size, quantity,
location, and type and contacting Pilatus to obtain repair instructions
if any discrepancies are found. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because it evaluated all information and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD will affect 30 products of
U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it would take about 7 work-
hours per product to comply with the inspection requirement of this
proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost of this proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $17,850, or $595 per product.
    Since the repair instructions could vary significantly if
discrepancies are found during the inspections, the FAA has no way of
determining the number of products that may need follow-on actions or
what the cost per product would be.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2019-0536; Product Identifier
2018-CE-054-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by August 19, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) Models PC-6,
PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2,
PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, PC-6/C1-
H2, PC-6-H1, and PC-6-H2 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated
in any category.

    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD:  These airplanes may also be
identified as Fairchild Republic Company airplanes, Fairchild Heli
Porter airplanes, or Fairchild-Hiller Corporation airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55: Stabilizers.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as rudder shaft
assemblies with incorrect rivet configuration. The FAA is issuing
this AD to prevent rudder shaft assembly failure, which could result
in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) and (2) of this AD:
    (1) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service after the
effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, inspect the
rudder shaft assembly for proper rivet configuration and repair any
discrepancies before further flight in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions--Part 1, paragraph 3.B. and table 1, of
Pilatus PC-6 Service Bulletin No: 27-006, Rev. No. 1, dated
September 4, 2018.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install a rudder
shaft assembly on any airplane unless it has been inspected in
accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and found to be free of
discrepancies or all discrepancies have been repaired or replaced.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Doug
Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Standards Branch,
901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816)
329-4059; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before
using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies,
notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD No. 2018-0222,
dated October 19, 2018, for related information. You may examine the
MCAI on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0536. For service information
related to this AD, contact PILATUS Aircraft Ltd., Customer
Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371 Stans, Switzerland;
phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73; email:
exception occurred on : 2019-14199.htm
exception occurred on : 2019-14199.htm
aircraft.com">[email protected]aircraft.com; internet: http://www.pilatus-
aircraft.com. You may review this referenced service information at
the FAA, Policy and Innovation Division, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 26, 2019.
James A. Grigg,
Acting Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-14199 Filed 7-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 57654]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22145]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending August 2, 2014

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 302.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2011-0076 and DOT-OST-2014-0133.
    Date Filed: July 31, 2014.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: August 21, 2014.
    Description: Application of Frontier Airlines, Inc. (``Frontier'')
requesting a consolidated certificate of public convenience and
necessity authorizing it to engage in scheduled foreign air
transportation of persons, property and mail between: (1) Chicago,
Illinois; Lansing, Michigan; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Rockford,
Illinois; on the one hand, and Puerto Vallarta, Mexico; (2) Cincinnati,
Ohio; Cleveland, Ohio; Lansing, Michigan; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Rockford, Illinois; and Washington, DC, on
the one hand, and Cancun, Mexico; (3) Chicago, Illinois and St. Louis,
Missouri, on the one hand, and San Jose del Cabo, Mexico; and (4)
Chicago, Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri, on the one hand, and
Huatulco, Mexico. Frontier also requests a designation to operate in
the Milwaukee-Puerto Vallarta market.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2014-0131.
    Date Filed: July 31, 2014.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: August 21, 2014.
    Description: Application of Frontier Airlines, Inc. requesting a
certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing it to
engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property,
and mail between a point or points in the United States and a point or
points in the Dominican Republic.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2014-22145 Filed 9-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 115 (Monday, June 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34371-34372]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13933]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72358; File No. SR-ICC-2014-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Update
the ICC Risk Management Framework

June 10, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 30, 2014, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared primarily by ICC. ICC filed the proposal pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \4\ thereunder,
so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise the ICC Risk
Management Framework to clarify language related to ICC's forced
allocation procedures. This revision does not require any changes to
the ICC Rules.

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

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

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

    The proposed revision to ICC's Risk Management Framework is
intended to clarify language related to ICC's forced allocation
procedures and to promote consistency between ICC's forced allocation
procedures as set forth in the ICC Rules and the ICC Risk Management
Framework.
    ICC believes such revision will facilitate the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative
agreements, contracts, and transactions for which it is responsible.
The proposed revision is described in detail as follows.
    Currently, the ICC Risk Management Framework states that, in the
event of a forced allocation, positions will be allocated to Clearing
Participants (``CPs'') based on each CP's overall risk profile. Under
ICC Rule 20-605(c)(vii), ICC, in the event of a failed auction or other
inability to close-out or transfer relevant positions, may allocate
positions to Non-Defaulting CPs on a pro rata basis in proportion to
the size of each CP's required contribution to the Guaranty Fund, as
relative to the aggregate of all Non-Defaulting CPs' required
contributions to the Guaranty Fund. ICC proposes revising the ICC Risk
Management Framework to more closely reflect the forced allocation
language in ICC Rule 20-605(c)(vii). Specifically, ICC proposes adding
clarifying language which states that in the event of a forced
allocation, positions will be allocated to each Non-Defaulting CP on a
pro rata basis in proportion to the size of each CP's required
contribution to the Guaranty Fund. ICC believes this update to the ICC
Risk Management Framework alleviates potential confusion regarding the
allocation process. This is a clarifying revision, and the changes to
the ICC Risk Management Framework do not require any operational
changes.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \5\ requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and
transactions and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules
and regulations thereunder. ICC believes that the proposed revision is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular, to Section
17A(b)(3)(F) \6\, because ICC believes that the proposed rule changes
will facilitate the prompt and accurate settlement of swaps and
contribute to the safeguarding of securities and funds associated with
swap transactions which are in the custody or control of ICC or for
which it is responsible. The revision to the ICC Risk Management
Framework alleviates potential confusion regarding the allocation
process. As such, the proposed rule changes will facilitate the prompt
and accurate settlement of swaps and contribute to the safeguarding of
customer funds and securities within the control of ICC within the
meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \7\ of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICC does not believe the proposed revision would have any impact,
or impose any burden, on competition. The revision to ICC's Risk
Management Framework regarding forced allocation procedures applies
uniformly across all CPs. Therefore, ICC does not believe the proposed
revision imposes any burden on competition that is inappropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \9\
thereunder because the update constitutes a stated policy, practice, or
interpretation with respect to the meaning, administration, or
enforcement of an existing rule. Specifically, ICC is updating language
in the ICC Risk Management Framework to more closely reflect the forced
allocation procedures set forth in ICC Rule 20-605(c)(vii). At any time
within

60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2014-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2014-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit
and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/notices/Notices.shtml?regulatoryFilings.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2014-09
and should be submitted on or before July 7, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary .
[FR Doc. 2014-13933 Filed 6-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


2 31 January 2003 EPA defined eight regions for its analysis based on similarities in the physical characteristics of the affected water bodies, aquatic species present in the area, and characteristics of commercial and recreational fishing activities in the area. These regions and the water body types within each region are described below.

Coastal Regions Coastal regions are fisheries regions defined by the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration ( NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS). Table 1 presents these geographic areas and the number of facilities included in each NMFS region. The North Atlantic region includes all estuary/ tidal river and ocean facilities in Maine, New Hampshire,

Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. The Mid Atlantic region includes all estuary/ tidal river and ocean facilities in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Delaware, and Virginia. The South Atlantic region includes all estuary/ tidal river and ocean facilities in the North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the east coast of Florida. The Gulf of Mexico region includes all estuary/ tidal river and ocean facilities in Texas, Louisiana,

Mississippi, and Alabama and the west coast of Florida. The Northern California region includes all estuary/ tidal river and ocean facilities north of Point Conception. The Southern California region includes all estuary/ tidal river and ocean facilities south of Point Conception.

Table 1 : Definition of Costal Regions Region Geographic Area Number of Estuarine Facilities Number of Ocean Facilities Total Number of Facilities North Atlantic Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut 19 2 21 Mid Atlantic New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia 43 1 44 South Atlantic North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, East Florida 13 1 14


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 247 (Thursday, December 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66699-66700]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27968]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG19-35-000.
    Applicants: 226HC 8me LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of 226HC 8me LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/18/18.
    Accession Number: 20181218-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/19.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1561-003.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Revised effective date offer cap
compliance revisions to be effective 12/19/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20181217-5339.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1596-001.
    Applicants: Sky River LLC.
    Description: eTariff filing per 1450: Compliance Filing in ER18-
1596-001 & EL18-112-001 to be effective 3/21/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20181217-5372.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1598-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Deficiency Response--Central Hudson
Show Cause to be effective 3/21/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20181217-5341.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2280-002.
    Applicants: Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to AECS Updated Rate
Schedule 2 to be effective 11/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20181217-5294.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2352-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2018-12-17_Deficiency response to
Real-Time Buybacks of Spinning and Offline Sup to be effective 2/14/
2019.
    Filed Date: 12/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20181217-5336.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-64-001.
    Applicants: Emera Maine, ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Emera Maine Response to Deficiency
Letter; ER19-64 to be effective 12/9/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/18/18.
    Accession Number: 20181218-5007.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-231-001.
    Applicants: Dynegy Oakland, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deferral of Commission Action to
Permit Ongoing Settlement Discussions to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20181217-5351.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-578-000.
    Applicants: Prairie Queen Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised MBR Tariff to be
effective 12/18/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20181217-5334.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-579-000.
    Applicants: Redbed Plains Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised MBR Tariff to be
effective 12/18/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20181217-5335.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-580-000.
    Applicants: Quilt Block Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised MBR Tariff to be
effective 12/18/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20181217-5337.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-581-000.
    Applicants: Turtle Creek Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised MBR Tariff to be
effective 12/18/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20181217-5338.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/7/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-582-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-12-17 Custom Load
Aggregation Points Clarification Amendment to be effective 3/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/18/18.
    Accession Number: 20181218-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-583-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 760 4th Rev--NITSA with
Beartooth Electric Coop to be effective 3/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/18/18.
    Accession Number: 20181218-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-584-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 792 2nd Rev--NITSA with
Big Horn County Electric Coop to be effective 3/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/18/18.
    Accession Number: 20181218-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-585-000.
    Applicants: Quilt Block Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Power Compensation
Filing to be effective 2/16/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/18/18.
    Accession Number: 20181218-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-586-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2810 City of Chanute and
Westar Meter Agent Agr Cancellation to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/18/18.
    Accession Number: 20181218-5008.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/8/19.

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

    Dated: December 18, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27968 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40557]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16065]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1585-020; ER10-1594-020; ER10-1597-008; ER10-
1617-020; ER10-1624-009; ER10-1628-020; ER10-1632-022; ER10-2385-010;
ER12-60-022; ER16-1148-011; ER16-733-011.
    Applicants: Alabama Electric Marketing, LLC, California Electric
Marketing, LLC, Kiowa Power Partners, LLC, LQA, LLC, New Mexico
Electric Marketing, LLC, Tenaska Energ[iacute]a de Mexico, S. de R.L.
de C.V., Tenaska Gateway Partners, Ltd., Tenaska Power Management, LLC,
Tenaska Power Services Co., Texas Electric Marketing, LLC, Elkhorn
Ridge Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Alabama Electric
Marketing, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1901-013.
    Applicants: Upper Peninsula Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Upper
Peninsula Power Company.
    Filed Date: 7/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210722-5176.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1668-003.
    Applicants: Phoenix Energy Group, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Phoenix Energy Group,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5225.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-46-000; EL10-56-000.
    Applicants: Mercuria Energy America, LLC.
    Description: Mercuria Energy America, LLC submits Supplement to
October 7, 2020 Cost Justification Filing.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5220.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-64-000; EL10-56-000.
    Applicants: Macquarie Energy LLC.
    Description: Macquarie Energy LLC submits Supplement to October 7,
2020 Cost Justification Filing.
    Filed Date: 7/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210719-5224.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1288-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2021-07-22 TCA Effective Date--
Morongo to be effective 7/12/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210722-5165.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2450-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Pre-Arranged/Pre-Agreed (Offer of Settlement and
Petition for Approval) Filing of Public Service Electric and Gas
Company.
    Filed Date: 7/14/21.
    Accession Number: 20210714-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2477-001.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata re: Rate Schedule Numbering,
Correcting Rate Schedule 328 to 331 to be effective 7/22/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210722-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2480-000.
    Applicants: Nexus Line, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Nexus Line, LLC TSA Rate
Schedule to be effective 9/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210721-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/11/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2481-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 676-I Compliance to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210722-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2482-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-Prairie Switch Wind
Generation Interconnection Agreement to be effective 7/6/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210722-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2483-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Origis Holdings USA Subco
(Hammond I Solar & Storage) LGIA Filing to be effective 7/8/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210722-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2484-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Origis Holdings USA Subco
(Hammond II Solar & Storage) LGIA Filing to be effective 7/8/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210722-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2485-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Otter
Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-07-22_SA 3678 OTP-MRES-
WMMPA TIA to be effective 10/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 7/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210722-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2486-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2021-07-22_MISO Waiver Request re:
DRR-I Fast Start Resources to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210722-5186.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2487-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-07-22_MISO Filing to
Clarify Modeling of DRR-I re: SCED-Pricing to be effective 5/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 7/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20210722-5190.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/21.

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

    Dated: July 22, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16065 Filed 7-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P