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-2019-0260; Product Identifier 2017-NE-13-AD” at the beginning of your comments. The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because of those comments.

The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.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.

The FAA issued AD 2017-22-02, Amendment 39-19082 (82 FR 51552, November 7, 2017), (“AD 2017-22-02”), for Ipeco pilot and co-pilot seats. AD 2017-22-02 requires modification and re-identification of the affected seats. AD 2017-22-02 resulted from reports of unexpected movement of pilot and co-pilot seats during takeoff and landing. The FAA issued AD 2017-22-02 to prevent unexpected movement of pilot and co-pilot seats during takeoff and landing.

Since the FAA issued AD 2017-22-02, Ipeco has received reports that the tracklock spring modification required by AD 2017-22-02 does not adequately address the issue of unexpected seat movement during takeoff and landing. As a result, Ipeco published Ipeco Service Bulletin (SB) 063-25-14, Revision 00, dated August 14, 2018, providing instructions to inspect and replace, if necessary, affected tracklock springs. Also, since the FAA issued AD 2017-22-02, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has issued AD 2018-0262, dated December 6, 2018, which retains the requirements of EASA AD 2016-0256, dated December 16, 2016, and also requires repetitive inspection of seats and, depending on findings, replacement of affected tracklock springs. Based on discussions with Ipeco and EASA, the FAA also determined the need to add additional seat part numbers (P/Ns) to the applicability. These seat P/Ns are included in the applicability of EASA AD 2018-0262.

The FAA reviewed Ipeco Service Bulletin (SB) Number 063-25-08, Revision 00; SB Number 063-25-09, Revision 00; and SB Number 063-25-10, Revision 00; all dated May 31, 2016. The SBs provide instructions, differentiated by the part numbers of the affected pilot and co-pilot seats, for the modification and re-identification of these seats. The FAA also reviewed Ipeco SB Number 063-25-14, Revision 00, dated August 14, 2018. This SB provides instructions for inspection and replacement, if necessary, of affected tracklock springs. 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.

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

This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2017-22-02. This proposed AD would add additional seat P/Ns to the applicability. This proposed AD would also require initial and repetitive inspections of the affected tracklock springs and, depending on the findings, replacement of the tracklock springs with a part eligible for installation.

This proposed AD and EASA AD 2018-0262, dated December 6, 2018, include pilot seat P/N 3A063-0099-01-1 and co-pilot seat P/N 3A063-0100-01-1in their respective applicability sections, while Ipeco SB Number 063-25-14, Revision 00, dated August 14, 2018, does not.

The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 110 pilot and co-pilot seats installed on, but not limited to, ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Regional (ATR) 42 and ATR 72 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that seats installed on 34 ATR 42 airplanes and seats installed on 21 ATR 72 airplanes will require modification and inspection. The FAA is revising the estimated number of affected seats in this cost estimate to include two affected seats per airplane.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

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

According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all costs in our cost estimate.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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.

This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

The FAA has 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 that the 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.

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

Section 5b(a) of the CEA provides that a clearing organization may not “perform the functions of a [DCO]”  2 with respect to futures or swaps unless the clearing organization is registered with the Commission. 3 With respect to futures, section 4(a) of the CEA restricts the execution of a futures contract to a designated contract market (DCM), and § 38.601 of the Commission's regulations requires any transaction executed on or through a DCM to be cleared at a DCO. 4 This is distinguished from foreign futures which, if executed on or through a registered foreign board of trade, must be cleared through a DCO or a clearing organization that observes the CPMI-IOSCO Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures and is in good regulatory standing in its home country jurisdiction. 5

With respect to swaps, the CEA permits the Commission to exempt from DCO registration a non-U.S. clearing organization that is “subject to comparable, comprehensive supervision and regulation” by its home country regulator. 6 The Commission has granted exemptions from DCO registration but so far has limited exempt DCOs to clearing only proprietary swaps for U.S. persons. As a result, a non-U.S. clearing organization currently must register as a DCO if it wants to clear swaps for customers of futures commission merchants (FCMs).

In order to register and maintain registration as a DCO, a clearing organization must comply with each of the core principles applicable to DCOs set forth in the CEA (DCO Core Principles) and any requirement that the Commission imposes by rule or regulation. 7 Most of the requirements applicable to DCOs are set forth in part 39 of the Commission's regulations (Part 39), which the Commission adopted to implement the DCO Core Principles. 8

Of the 16 DCOs currently registered with the Commission, six are organized outside of the United States. 9 These six DCOs are also registered (or have comparable status) in their respective home countries, which means they are subject to compliance with the CEA and Part 39 and their home country regulatory regimes, as well as oversight by the Commission and their home country regulators. There are, however, meaningful differences in the extent to which U.S. persons clear trades through these six non-U.S. DCOs. For example, nearly half of the swaps business at LCH Limited, if measured on the basis of required initial margin, is attributable to U.S. persons. 10 In contrast, certain other non-U.S. DCOs, such as LCH SA and Eurex Clearing AG, for example, hold significantly less initial margin from U.S. persons, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the total required initial margin at the DCO. The Commission, recognizing this regulatory overlap and considering the dynamics of the marketplace, is proposing a new DCO registration framework that would differentiate between clearing organizations organized in the United States (U.S. clearing organizations) and non-U.S. clearing organizations. The proposed framework would also distinguish non-U.S. clearing organizations that do not pose substantial risk to the U.S. financial system from those that do.

Under the new framework, the status of U.S. clearing organizations would not change. A U.S. clearing organization would still be required to register as a DCO and to comply with the CEA and all Commission regulations applicable to DCOs. In addition, any non-U.S. clearing organization that wants to clear futures listed for trading on a DCM would be subject to the current registration requirements. Finally, any non-U.S. clearing organization that wants to clear swaps, either proprietary or customer, for U.S. persons, and is determined by the Commission to pose substantial risk to the U.S. financial system (as discussed further below), would be subject to the current requirements as well.

However, a non-U.S. clearing organization that wants to clear swaps for U.S. persons (and not futures listed for trading on a DCM) and has not been determined by the Commission to pose substantial risk to the U.S. financial system would have two additional options. First, the non-U.S. clearing organization could still apply for an exemption from DCO registration. The Commission recognizes that this option may not appeal to some non-U.S. clearing organizations because, as previously noted, an exempt DCO is currently limited to clearing proprietary swaps for U.S. persons. 11 If the non-U.S. clearing organization wants to clear swaps for FCM customers, but does not want to be subject to full compliance with Commission regulations, it would have the option to register and maintain registration as a DCO by relying largely on its home country regulatory regime, as discussed below.

The Commission believes these proposed changes would allow the Commission to make more effective use of its resources by focusing its oversight almost exclusively on those DCOs that are either organized in the United States or pose substantial risk to the U.S. financial system. The Commission further believes this rulemaking would advance a territorial, risk-based approach to the regulation of clearing organizations that shows appropriate deference to non-U.S. regulation that achieves a similar result as the DCO Core Principles where the non-U.S. regulator itself has a substantial regulatory interest in the DCOs located in its jurisdiction. A deference-based cross-border policy recognizes that market participants and market facilities in a globalized swap market are subject to multiple regulators and potentially face duplicative regulations. Under the proposed framework, the Commission would allow a non-U.S. DCO to satisfy the DCO Core Principles by complying with the corresponding requirements in its home jurisdiction, except with respect to certain Commission regulations, including critical customer protection safeguards and swap data reporting requirements, as discussed below. In this way, the proposed framework would help preserve the benefits of an integrated, global swap market by reducing the degree to which a DCO would be subject to multiple sets of regulations, while ensuring protection for U.S. customers. Further, the proposed approach encourages collaboration and coordination among U.S. and foreign regulators in establishing comprehensive regulatory standards for swaps clearing.

The CEA requires a DCO to comply with the DCO Core Principles and any requirement that the Commission imposes by rule or regulation. The CEA further provides that, subject to any rule or regulation prescribed by the Commission, a DCO has “reasonable discretion” in establishing the manner by which the DCO complies with each DCO Core Principle. 12 Currently, a DCO is required to comply with all Commission regulations that were adopted to implement the DCO Core Principles. The Commission is proposing regulations that would allow a non-U.S. clearing organization that seeks to clear swaps for U.S. persons, 13 including FCM customers, to register as a DCO and, in most instances, comply with the applicable legal requirements in its home country as an alternative means of complying with the DCO Core Principles.

A non-U.S. clearing organization would be eligible for this alternative compliance regime if: (1) The Commission determines that the clearing organization's compliance with its home country regulatory regime would satisfy the DCO Core Principles;  14 (2) the clearing organization is in good regulatory standing in its home country; (3) the Commission determines that the clearing organization does not pose substantial risk to the U.S. financial system; and (4) a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or similar arrangement satisfactory to the Commission is in effect between the Commission and the clearing organization's home country regulator. Each of these requirements is described in greater detail below.

An applicant for alternative compliance would be required to file only certain exhibits of Form DCO, 15 including a regulatory compliance chart in which the applicant would identify the applicable legal requirements  16 in its home country that correspond with each DCO Core Principle and explain how the applicant satisfies those requirements. Under the current registration regime, an applicant must demonstrate compliance with the DCO Core Principles and Part 39. Under the alternative compliance regime, an applicant must demonstrate: (1) That compliance with its home country requirements would satisfy the DCO Core Principles, and (2) compliance with those requirements. If the application is approved by the Commission, the DCO would be permitted to comply with its home country regulatory regime rather than Part 39 (with the exception of § 39.15, which concerns treatment of funds). Because the DCO would clear swaps for customers  17 through registered FCMs, the DCO would be required to fully comply with the Commission's customer protection requirements, 18 as well as the swap data reporting requirements in part 45 of the Commission's regulations. The DCO would also be held to certain ongoing and event-specific reporting requirements that are more limited in scope than the reporting requirements for existing DCOs. The proposed eligibility criteria, conditions, and reporting requirements would be set forth in proposed subpart D of Part 39.

Assuming all other eligibility criteria continue to be met, the alternative compliance regime would be available to the non-U.S. DCO unless and until its U.S. clearing activity (as measured by initial margin requirements) grows to the point that the Commission determines the DCO poses substantial risk to the U.S. financial system, as described below. If this alternative compliance regime is adopted, any currently registered non-U.S. DCO that does not currently pose substantial risk to the U.S. financial system would be able to apply.

In a recent notice of proposed rulemaking regarding exempt DCOs, the Commission proposed a definition of “good regulatory standing” that is consistent with the definition that the Commission has been applying to exempt DCOs. 19 The Commission is now proposing to add to the definition of “good regulatory standing” separate language that would cover DCOs subject to alternative compliance. The proposed definition of “good regulatory standing” as it relates to exempt DCOs remains unchanged. With the addition of the separate language, the Commission is proposing to define “good regulatory standing” to mean, with respect to a DCO subject to alternative compliance, either there has been no finding by the home country regulator of material non-observance of the relevant home country legal requirements, or there has been such a finding by the home country regulator, but it has been or is being resolved to the satisfaction of the home country regulator by means of corrective action taken by the DCO. The Commission believes that the proposed definition, as it relates to DCOs subject to alternative compliance, establishes a basis for providing the Commission with a high degree of assurance as to the DCO's compliance with the relevant legal requirements in its home country, while only seeking from the home country regulator a reasonable representation. Although the Commission proposes to limit this to instances of “material” non-observance of relevant home country legal requirements, the Commission requests comment as to whether it should instead require all instances of non-observance.

For purposes of this rulemaking, the Commission is proposing to define “substantial risk to the U.S. financial system” to mean, with respect to a non-U.S. DCO, that (1) the DCO holds 20 percent or more of the required initial margin of U.S. clearing members for swaps across all registered and exempt DCOs; and (2) 20 percent or more of the initial margin requirements for swaps at that DCO is attributable to U.S. clearing members; provided, however, where one or both of these thresholds are close to 20 percent, the Commission may exercise discretion in determining whether the DCO poses substantial risk to the U.S. financial system. For purposes of this definition and proposed §§ 39.6 and 39.51, the Commission is proposing to clarify that “U.S. clearing member” means a clearing member organized in the United States or whose ultimate parent company is organized in the United States, or an FCM. 20

This definition sets forth the test the Commission would use to identify those non-U.S. DCOs that pose substantial risk to the U.S. financial system, as these DCOs would not be eligible for the alternative compliance proposed in this release. The proposed test consists of two prongs. The first prong, which is directly related to systemic risk, is whether the DCO holds 20 percent or more of the required initial margin  21 of U.S. clearing members for swaps across all registered and exempt DCOs. The Commission notes that its primary systemic risk-related concern is the potential for loss of clearing services for a significant part of the U.S. swaps market in the event of a catastrophic occurrence affecting the DCO. The second prong is whether U.S. clearing members account for 20 percent or more of the initial margin requirements for swaps at that DCO. This prong of the test, intended to respect international comity, would capture a non-U.S. DCO only if a large enough proportion of its clearing activity were attributable to U.S. clearing members such that the U.S. has a substantial interest warranting more active oversight by the Commission. 22

The Commission believes that, in the context of this test, the term “substantial” would reasonably apply to proportions of approximately 20 percent or greater. The Commission stresses that this is not a bright-line test; by offering this figure, the Commission does not intend to suggest that, for example, a DCO that holds 20.1 percent of the required initial margin of U.S. clearing members would potentially pose substantial risk to the U.S. financial system, while a DCO that holds 19.9 percent would not. The Commission is instead seeking to offer some indication of how it would assess the meaning of the term “substantial” in the test.

The Commission recognizes that a test based solely on initial margin requirements may not fully capture the risk of a given DCO. The Commission therefore proposes to retain discretion in determining whether a non-U.S. DCO poses substantial risk to the U.S. financial system, particularly where the DCO is close to 20 percent on both prongs of the test. In these cases, in making its determination, the Commission may look at other factors that may reduce or mitigate the DCO's risk to the U.S. financial system or provide a better indication of the DCO's risk to the U.S. financial system.

The Commission is proposing to amend § 39.3(a) to establish in paragraph (a)(3) alternative application procedures for a non-U.S. clearing organization that is seeking to register as a DCO to clear swaps, does not pose substantial risk to the U.S. financial system, and wants to comply with its home country regulatory regime as a means of satisfying the DCO Core Principles. 23 Specifically, any such clearing organization may apply for registration in accordance with the terms of § 39.3(a)(3) in lieu of filing the application described in § 39.3(a)(2). 24

Proposed § 39.3(a)(3) would require an applicant to submit to the Commission the following sections of Form DCO: Cover sheet, Exhibit A-1 (regulatory compliance chart), Exhibit A-2 (proposed rulebook), Exhibit A-3 (narrative summary of proposed clearing activities), Exhibit A-4 (detailed business plan), Exhibit A-7 (documents setting forth the applicant's corporate organizational structure), Exhibit A-8 (documents establishing the applicant's legal status and certificate(s) of good standing or its equivalent), Exhibit A-9 (description of pending legal proceedings or governmental investigations), Exhibit A-10 (agreements with outside service providers with respect to the treatment of customer funds), Exhibits F-1 through F-3 (documents that demonstrate compliance with the treatment of funds requirements with respect to FCM customers), and Exhibit R (ring-fencing memorandum).

For purposes of § 39.3(a)(3), the applicant would be required to demonstrate to the Commission in Exhibit A-1 the extent to which compliance with the applicable legal requirements in its home country would constitute compliance with the DCO Core Principles. 25 To satisfy this requirement, the applicant would be required to provide in Exhibit A-1 the citation and full text of each applicable legal requirement in its home country that corresponds with each DCO Core Principle and an explanation of how the applicant satisfies those requirements. To the extent that the DCO's home country regulatory regime lacks legal requirements that correspond to those DCO Core Principles less related to risk, the Commission may, in its discretion, grant registration subject to conditions that would address the relevant DCO Core Principles. 26

Regulation 39.4(b) provides that proposed new or amended rules of a DCO not voluntarily submitted for Commission approval pursuant to § 40.5 must be submitted to the Commission pursuant to the self-certification procedures of § 40.6, as required by section 5c(c) of the CEA, 27 prior to their implementation. 28 Pursuant to the Commission's authority under section 4(c) of the CEA, 29 the Commission is proposing in § 39.4(c) to exempt DCOs that are subject to alternative compliance from submitting rules pursuant to section 5c(c) of the CEA and § 40.6, unless the rule relates to the DCO's compliance with the requirements of part 45 of the Commission's regulations, 30 or section 4d(f) of the CEA, 31 parts 1 or 22 of the Commission's regulations, 32 or § 39.15, 33 which set forth the Commission's customer protection requirements, as such DCOs would be subject to compliance with these requirements.

The Commission is proposing this limited exemption from the rule submission requirements for DCOs that are subject to alternative compliance as they would be subject to the applicable laws in their home country and oversight by their respective home country regulators. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the review of any new or amended rule unrelated to the Commission's customer protection regime would be more appropriately handled by the DCO's home country regulator. The Commission requests comment as to whether it should require, as part of the application process for alternative compliance, that there is a rule review or approval process under the home country regime.

The Commission believes the proposed exemption in § 39.4(c) is consistent with the public interest, as it would allow the Commission to focus on reviewing those critical rules that relate to areas where the Commission exercises direct oversight rather than review other rules for which duplication of review with the home country regulator is not necessary. The proposed exemption would reflect the protection of customers—and safeguarding of money, securities, or other property deposited by customers—as a fundamental component of the Commission's regulatory oversight of the derivatives markets by requiring these DCOs to certify rules relating to the Commission's customer protection requirements. A DCO's new or amended customer protection-related rules would also continue to be made transparent to FCMs and their customers, as § 40.6(a)(2) requires a DCO to certify that it has posted on its website a copy of the rule submission. 34

At the same time, the proposed exemption in § 39.4(c) would reduce the time and resources necessary for DCOs to file rules unrelated to the Commission's customer protection or swap data reporting requirements. In light of the foregoing, the Commission believes the proposed exemption would be consistent with the public interest and the purposes of the CEA. The Commission also believes the proposed exemption would not have a material adverse effect on the ability of the Commission or any contract market to discharge its regulatory or self-regulatory duties under the CEA, as the Commission would continue to receive submissions for new rules or rule changes concerning customer protection and swap data reporting, matters for which the DCO is subject to compliance with Commission regulation. 35

The Commission recently proposed to revise § 39.9 to make it clear that the provisions of subpart B apply to any DCO, as defined under section 1a(15) of the CEA and § 1.3, that is registered with the Commission as a DCO pursuant to section 5b of the CEA, but do not apply to any exempt DCO. 36 The Commission is proposing to further revise § 39.9 to provide that the provisions of subpart B apply to any DCO, except as otherwise provided by Commission order. This change is intended to reflect the fact that a DCO registered through the alternative compliance procedures under proposed § 39.3(a)(3) would not be held to the requirements in subpart B, with the exception of § 39.15 and those requirements for which the Commission did not find there to be alternative compliance in the DCO's home country regulatory regime, as provided in the DCO's order. This provision also would allow the Commission to not apply to a particular DCO any subpart B requirement that the Commission deems irrelevant or otherwise inapplicable due to, for example, certain characteristics of the DCO's business model.

The Commission is proposing new § 39.50 to state that the provisions of subpart D of Part 39 apply to any DCO that is registered through the process described in § 39.3(a)(3) ( i.e., DCOs subject to alternative compliance). Proposed § 39.51 would be contained in subpart D and would set forth the requirements for alternative compliance, as discussed below.

Proposed § 39.51(a) would provide that the Commission may register, subject to any terms and conditions as the Commission determines to be appropriate, a clearing organization for the clearing of swaps for U.S. persons if all of the eligibility requirements listed in proposed § 39.51(a)(1) and (a)(2) are met and the clearing organization satisfies the conditions set forth in § 39.51(b). 37 Each of these requirements is described below.

Proposed § 39.51(a)(1)(i) would require that, in order to be eligible for alternative compliance as a DCO, the Commission must determine that compliance with the clearing organization's home country regulatory regime would satisfy the DCO Core Principles. Under proposed § 39.51(a)(1)(ii), a clearing organization would be required to be in good regulatory standing in its home country. Under proposed § 39.51(a)(1)(iii), the Commission must also determine that the clearing organization does not pose substantial risk to the U.S. financial system (as previously discussed).

Proposed § 39.51(a)(1)(iv) would provide that, in order for a clearing organization to be eligible for alternative compliance as a DCO, an MOU or similar arrangement satisfactory to the Commission must be in effect between the Commission and the clearing organization's home country regulator, 38 pursuant to which, among other things, the home country regulator agrees to provide to the Commission any information that the Commission deems appropriate to evaluate the clearing organization's initial and continued eligibility for registration or to review compliance with any conditions of such registration. The Commission has customarily entered into MOUs or similar arrangements in connection with the supervision of non-U.S. clearing organizations that are registered or exempt from DCO registration. In the context of DCOs subject to alternative compliance, satisfactory MOUs or similar arrangements with the home country regulator would include provisions for information sharing and cooperation, as well as for notification upon the occurrence of certain events. 39 Although the Commission would retain the right to conduct site visits, the Commission would not expect to conduct routine site visits to such DCOs.

Under proposed § 39.51(a)(2), if the DCO's home country regulatory regime lacks legal requirements that correspond to those DCO Core Principles less related to risk, the Commission may, in its discretion, grant registration subject to conditions that would address the relevant DCO Core Principles.

Proposed § 39.51(b) sets forth conditions of alternative compliance. These conditions are similar to the conditions that the Commission has imposed on exempt DCOs. 40

Under proposed § 39.51(b)(1), a DCO subject to alternative compliance would be required to comply with the DCO Core Principles through its compliance with applicable legal requirements in its home country, and any other requirements specified in its registration order including, but not limited to, section 4d(f) of the CEA, parts 1, 22, and 45 of the Commission's regulations, subpart A of Part 39, and § 39.15. Because the DCO would clear swaps for FCM customers, the DCO would be subject to the Commission's customer protection requirements set forth in section 4d(f) of the CEA, parts 1 and 22 of the Commission's regulations, and § 39.15. The DCO would also be subject to part 45 of the Commission's regulations, which sets forth swap data recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and subpart A of Part 39, which contains general provisions applicable to DCOs, including registration procedures.

Proposed § 39.51(b)(2) would codify the “open access” requirements of section 2(h)(1)(B) of the CEA with respect to swaps cleared by a DCO to which one or more of the counterparties is a U.S. person. 41 Paragraph (b)(2)(i) would require a DCO to have rules providing that all such swaps with the same terms and conditions (as defined by product specifications established under the DCO's rules) submitted to the DCO for clearing are economically equivalent and may be offset with each other, to the extent that offsetting is permitted by the DCO's rules. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) would require a DCO to have rules providing for non-discriminatory clearing of such a swap executed either bilaterally or on or subject to the rules of an unaffiliated electronic matching platform or trade execution facility, e.g., a swap execution facility.

Proposed § 39.51(b)(3) would provide that a DCO must consent to jurisdiction in the United States and designate an agent in the United States, for notice or service of process, pleadings, or other documents issued by or on behalf of the Commission or the U.S. Department of Justice in connection with any actions or proceedings against, or any investigations relating to, the DCO or any of its U.S. clearing members. The name of the designated agent would be submitted as part of the clearing organization's application for registration. If a DCO appoints another agent to accept such notice or service of process, the DCO would be required to promptly inform the Commission of this change. This condition is also included in existing DCO registration orders.

Proposed § 39.51(b)(4) is a general provision that would require a DCO to comply, and demonstrate compliance as requested by the Commission, with any condition of the DCO's registration order.

Proposed § 39.51(b)(5) would require a DCO to make all documents, books, records, reports, and other information related to its operation as a DCO (hereinafter, “books and records”) open to inspection and copying by any Commission representative, and to promptly make its books and records available and provide them directly to Commission representatives, upon the request of a Commission representative. The Commission notes that it does not anticipate conducting routine site visits to DCOs subject to alternative compliance. However, the Commission may request a DCO to provide books and records related to its operation as a DCO subject to alternative compliance in order for the Commission to ensure that, among other things, the DCO continues to meet the eligibility requirements for alternative compliance as well as the conditions of its registration. 42

On July 12, 2019, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to the Postal Service's periodic reports. 1 The Petition identifies the proposed analytical changes filed in this docket as Proposal Five.

Background. Proposal Five relates to the methodology used to calculate indemnity costs for both Domestic and International Indemnities. Petition, Proposal Five at 1-2.

The Postal Service previously submitted a proposal to change the treatment of International Indemnities in response to the Commission's FY 2017 Annual Compliance Determination (ACD). 2 In the FY 2018 ACD, the Commission found that, despite the change in the treatment of International Indemnities, Outbound International Insurance costs exceeded revenue during FY 2018. 3 The Commission noted that “[w]hen additional insurance is purchased for a mailpiece, all of the associated indemnity is assigned to the Outbound International Insurance product, rather than the amount of the indemnity greater than the value of the built-in insurance.” FY 2018 ACD at 108. The Commission also found that “the data the Postal Service provided concerning Outbound International Insurance raises concerns about the accuracy of the revenue data, as discrepancies exist between published rates and reported revenue per piece.” Id. Accordingly, the Commission directed the Postal Service to investigate the discrepancies between “published rates and reported revenue per piece[ ]” and file a report within 120 days of issuance of the ACD “on the results of this investigation and on the feasibility of disaggregating indemnities between insurance included in the product and additional insurance purchased for the mailpiece.” Id.

In response, the Postal Service indicates that it has “investigated the feasibility of disaggregating indemnities between insurance included in the product and additional insurance purchased for the mailpiece, and has developed the methodology presented in this proposal” for both Domestic and International Indemnities. Petition, Proposal Five at 2.

Proposal. The Postal Service's proposal seeks to revise the methodology used to calculate costs for both Domestic and International Indemnities “to more accurately account for indemnity coverage that is included in the base price of a product, versus indemnity coverage that is purchased in addition to the base price.” Id. at 1. The proposal would modify the decision rule that currently “ignores the insurance included with the product when the indemnity exceeds the predetermined amount ($50, $100, or $200, depending on the product).” Id. at 2. Under the existing methodology, “any additional insurance purchased beyond that included with the product was responsible for the incurrence of the entire insurance indemnity.” Id. The proposal would revise the costing of indemnities by attributing the portion of an indemnity up to the predetermined base amount to the product. Id.

Rationale and impact. As a result of its investigation of the available data, the Postal Service states that “it is possible to distinguish between the product portion of the indemnity and the insurance portion of the indemnity for indemnities over the included amount.” Id. The Postal Service concludes that Proposal Five will “more properly align indemnity costs with the parent product and the insurance service.” Id. at 3.

The Postal Service states that Proposal Five would change Indemnity costs in Cost Segment 20 of the Cost and Revenue Analysis and the International Cost and Revenue Analysis. Id. The Postal Service reports that the domestic impact on every mail class would be less than 1 percent and the “biggest impact is to shift 26 percent of Indemnities costs from Insurance to the other products and mail classes.” Id. The Postal Service states that only two domestic competitive product-types (Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail) would have received “additional indemnity costs in FY 2018” under Proposal Five. Id. at 3-4. The Postal Service states that the “most extreme possible impacts of the proposal would be immaterial changes affecting either the non-[negotiated service agreement] NSA portion or the NSA portion of these product types.” Id. at 4.

The Postal Service reports that the international impact of Proposal Five “shifts costs from Outbound Insurance to Priority Mail International, Global Express Guaranteed and Priority Mail Express International.” Id. at 5. The Postal Service claims that “Outbound insurance would have had positive contribution in FY 2018” under Proposal Five and that “contribution from each of the three affected international mail categories would have remained positive.” Id.

The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2019-10 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's website at http://www.prc.gov. Interested persons may submit comments on the Petition and Proposal Five no later than August 26, 2019. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission designates Natalie R. Ward as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.

It is ordered:

1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2019-10 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Five), filed July 12, 2019.

2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than August 26, 2019.

3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Natalie R. Ward to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.

4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the Federal Register .

The EPA announces its intent to delete the surface and unsaturated subsurface soils of the Idaho Pole Company Superfund Site (Site) outside of the 4.5 acre Treated Soils Area, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and request public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which the EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The EPA maintains the NPL as those sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). The EPA proposed the facility for listing on the NPL in 1984, 29 FR 40320 (Oct. 15, 1984). The listing was final in 1986, 51 FR 21054 (June 10, 1986).

This partial deletion of the surface and unsaturated subsurface soils totaling approximately 82 acres at the Idaho Pole Company Superfund Site is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions warrant such actions. Any remaining contaminated saturated soils, sediments and groundwater at the Idaho Pole Company Superfund site as well as the 4.5 acres within the Treated Soils Area will remain on the NPL and are not subject to this partial deletion action.

The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal Register .

Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the response actions that have addressed the surface and unsaturated subsurface soils of the Idaho Pole Company Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, the EPA conducts five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted from the NPL. The EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

The following procedures apply to deletion of the surface and unsaturated subsurface soils of the Site:

(1) The EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion.

(2) The EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this notice prior to publication of it today.

(3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, the EPA has determined that no further response is appropriate.

(4) The State of Montana, through the MDEQ, has concurred with the deletion of the surface and unsaturated subsurface soils of the Idaho Pole Company Superfund Site, from the NPL.

(5) Concurrently, with the publication of this Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion in the Federal Register , a notice is being published in The Bozeman Daily Chronicle. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.

(6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial deletion in the deletion docket, made these items available for public inspection, and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this document, the EPA will evaluate and respond accordingly to the comments before making a final decision to delete the surface and unsaturated subsurface soils outside of the 4.5 acre Treated Soils Area. If necessary, the EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received. After the public comment period, if the EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the surface and unsaturated subsurface soils of the Idaho Pole Company Superfund Site outside of the 4.5 acre Treated Soils Area, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register . Public notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and included in the Site information repositories listed above.

Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter the EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

The following information provides the EPA's rationale for deleting the surface and unsaturated subsurface soils outside of the 4.5 acre Treated Soils Area of the Idaho Pole Company Superfund Site from the NPL.

The Idaho Pole Company Superfund Site, CERCLIS ID MTD00623276, is located near the northern limits of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The Site occupies approximately 87 acres in the east half of Section 6 and the west half of Section 5, Township 2S, Range 6E of Gallatin County. The Site is bounded by the Montana Rail Link (MRL) railroad tracks to the south, L Street to the west and Rocky Creek to the east and north of the Site. Interstate Highway 90 (I-90), Bohart Lane and Cedar Street traverse the Site in an east-west direction.

The four parcels south of I-90, north of the MRL railroad tracks and east of L Street are part of this partial deletion. The four parcels are owned by the Idaho Pole Company (IPC) and total approximately 40 acres. These parcels contain the groundwater recovery system building and associated extraction and injection galleries, a log cabin structure that was historically used by the site manager but is currently unoccupied, and an office building. The remaining area is an open field. The four parcels are within Bozeman's city limits and are currently zoned for commercial/industrial use. Cedar Street transects this section of the Site. A portion of two of these parcels contains the 4.5 acre Treated Soils Area. This is where treated soils that do not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure have been placed and a Notice of Institutional Controls has been filed on the deed with Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder restricting excavation and construction in this area without specific approval from the State of Montana and the EPA.

The Idaho Pole Company also owns the parcel immediately north of Bohart Lane and east of L Street which is part of this partial deletion. This parcel is currently fenced to restrict access since there was an interceptor trench that was used to historically recover wood treating fluids. Product that accumulated in the trench was removed from the trench using absorbent pads, as needed. Operation of the trench ceased in October 2015 after several years where no product was recovered, and the trench was closed per the EPA approved Trench Closure Work Plan. The fence is not needed for the remedy and can be taken down to facilitate redevelopment of the property. There are no structures on this property. This approximately seven-acre parcel is identified as the Pasture Area in site documents and is within Bozeman city limits. The property is zoned for commercial/industrial use and there is a potential to place commercial structures on this property in the future.

Approximately eighteen additional acres on three parcels owned by IPC north of Bohart Lane, south of Rocky Creek and east and west of L Street are also part of this partial deletion. There are currently no structures on these properties and these parcels are occasionally used by nearby residents as pasture. These parcels are outside of Bozeman city limits in unincorporated Gallatin County and are zoned rural residential.

In addition to property owned by IPC, approximately seven acres is owned by Northwestern Energy (formerly Montana Power Company) including the East Gallatin Substation. This parcel is immediately north of Bohart Lane and east of the Pasture Area parcel. The East Gallatin Substation was constructed in the mid-1970's and serves the northeast side of Bozeman.

Another approximately fifteen acres includes the portions of I-90, Cedar Street, and Bohart Lane that transect the Site as well as the right away associated with these roads. Privately-owned land north and east of Rocky Creek and west of L Street are only included in the groundwater portion of the Site and are not part of this partial deletion. Interstate Highway 90 was constructed through the property north of the facility from 1967 to 1969. Historically, the land now occupied by 1-90 and the area northeast of 1-90 to Rocky Creek was predominantly used for residential and ranch purposes.

Between the late 1800s and early 1940s, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company operated a five-stall roundhouse south of Cedar Street and east of L Street that was used for light maintenance and to house helper engines that were used to pull and push trains up and down Bozeman Pass. Modifications to the roundhouse were periodically completed to accommodate larger helper engines that came into service. The roundhouse was considered obsolete with the development of diesel engines in the 1930s that had sufficient power to traverse Bozeman Pass without helper engines and the roundhouse was abandoned in the early 1940s.

The IPC wood treating facility began operations in 1945 using creosote to preserve wood. The creosote was mixed with a petroleum distillate and heated in vats prior to treatment. Creosote contains several larger hydrocarbon molecules (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)) which are identified as contaminants of concern at the Site.

Lodgepole pine and cedar (white wood) poles were brought to the Site by rail and truck and stored until treated. White wood was stored near the former roundhouse area as well as between the treatment facilities and the MRL railroad tracks awaiting treatment. The wood treatment process was initiated via a customer order. Prior to treatment, the bark was removed from the poles and excess bark was stored in piles on-site at the east side of the property on both the north and south sides of Cedar Street.

In the early days of Site operations, treatment consisted of immersion of the end of the poles into a butt vat of heated creosote solution. This was later extended to full length pole treatment with the installation of a full-length vat in 1952. There was also a drying area on-site where treated poles were stored temporarily prior to shipment off-site. Since most orders were custom orders, treated poles only stayed on-site for a few days before transport to the customer.

In 1952, IPC switched to pentachlorophenol (PCP) for wood treatment. Initially, any remaining creosote was cycled in with PCP rather than disposed on-site since there were few customer concerns about the color of the treated wood. Pentachlorophenol continued to be used until wood treatment operations ceased in 1997. Pentachlorophenol is a known carcinogen and is also identified as a contaminant of concern at the Site.

The PCP was brought to the Site in bulk as a solid and was diluted as a 5% solution in a carrier oil and heated in vats prior to wood treatment. Commercial grade PCP usually contains about 86% PCP purity and 14% other impurities such as chlorophenols and dioxins/furans. The other chlorophenols include compounds such as tetrachlorophenol, trichlorophenol, and dichlorophenol. Dioxins/furans produced during the manufacturing of PCP are the result of improper combustion.

In 1975, a pressurized heated retort was added for treating full length poles and placed in the Pressure Plant. The full-length vat used to treat full-length poles that was installed in 1952 was taken out of service in 1979 and demolished in 1981. Wood treating operations continued with the pressurized heated retort and the butt vat until 1997 when wood-treating operations ceased.

The full-length vat that was decommissioned in 1979 had corroded on the bottom and the vat leaked an unknown amount of wood treating fluid into the underlying soil and groundwater for an undetermined amount of time resulting in the majority of releases observed at the Site. System operations also resulted in the occasional spilling of heated wood treating fluids on nearby soils around treatment facilities. All treatment operations described above occurred around the 4.5 acre Treated Soils Area located south of I-90.

In 1978, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks notified the Montana Department of Health & Environment (MDHES) of a suspected release of oily wood treating fluid from the plant. MDHES found evidence of a release in ditches near the facility and near Rocky Creek. Consequently, MDHES issued a compliance order on September 29, 1978, notifying IPC of statutory violations and directing the company to stop uncontrolled releases and to clean up spilled treating fluid. Between 1978 and 1980, IPC installed an interceptor trench and drain that ran parallel to I-90 to collect non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) on the groundwater surface. In 1984, IPC hired a consultant to investigate soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater contamination. The results of the investigation, which was conducted without MDHES or EPA oversight, are presented in a 1985 report. The EPA proposed the facility for listing on the NPL in 1984, 29 FR 40320 (Oct. 15, 1984). The listing was final in 1986, 51 FR 21054 (June 10, 1986).

In March 1989, MDHES requested and received the lead agency role for a fund-financed RI/FS for the Site. The RI defined the nature and extent of contamination and provided data to complete the baseline Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments. Contaminated surface soils were identified around the treatment facilities, north and south of Cedar Street, near the former roundhouse and in the Pasture Area. Contamination of the groundwater saturated subsurface soils occurred within the bounds of the 6.7-acre wood treating NAPL contamination area identified in Figure 5-3 of the RI Report. This subsurface NAPL resulted in the smearing of oily wood treating fluid in the subsurface during the seasonally fluctuating groundwater table. At high water table conditions, the oily wood treating fluid expressed near the ground surface in the Pasture Area north of I-90, resulting in isolated pockets of wood treating fluid in the subsurface soils.

Upon completion of the RI Report, the Feasibility Study (FS) commenced. The primary objective of the FS was to provide sufficient information to support an informed risk management decision to select the most appropriate cleanup remedy for the IPC Site. The soil component of the remedy identified excavation and on-site treatment of accessible soils as the most appropriate remedy. Inaccessible soils (saturated subsurface soils, soils under I-90 and active facility operations) would be addressed as part of the groundwater remedy.

For human health protection, the remedial action objectives identified in the FS for soil are to:

• Prevent excess incidence of cancer risks from exceeding 1 in 10,000 following lifetime direct contact with, and ingestion of, soils contaminated with carcinogenic contaminants of concern (CoCs);

• Prevent ingestion of/direct contact with soils having noncarcinogens at levels which exceed the reference doses; and

• Prevent excess incidence of cancer risks from exceeding 1 in 10,000 following inhalation of carcinogenic CoCs at a lifetime of exposure.

For environmental protection, the remedial action objective for soil is to:

• Prevent migration of contaminated leachate that would result in groundwater contamination in excess of the proposed maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). (Proposed MCLs are To Be Considered as Applicable Relevant and Appropriate Requirements).

Following issuance of a Proposed Plan, the EPA released a Record of Decision (ROD) in 1992. A remedial alternative for soil and groundwater that is protective of human health and the environment was selected. The COCs identified in the ROD are PCP, PAHs, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (dioxins/furans) which are reported as a toxicity equivalent value of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD TEQ)). One Operable Unit (OU01) was established for the Site and included the soil and groundwater component. The EPA's remedy selection was based on the assumption that IPC would continue its commercial operations, limiting access to soils underlying operating structures.

The major components of the selected remedy that addressed contaminated surface and unsaturated subsurface soils include:

• Excavation and surface land biological treatment on-site of accessible contaminated soils from the Pasture Area and the area between Cedar Street and I-90 including ditch sediments or bottoms, and the former roundhouse area;

• Hot water and steam flushing of inaccessible soils underlying the active pole plant facility and I-90 in order to recover hazardous substances;

• Separation and disposal of oily wood treating fluid extracted from soils; and

• Implement land use and deed restrictions (Institutional Controls) to preserve the integrity of the remedy.

The ROD established performance standards deemed protective of human health and the environment for both soils and groundwater. Site specific soil performance standards of known or suspected carcinogenic contaminants (PCP, TCDDs, and Total class B2 PAHs) were developed based on a cancer risk of 1.0 × 10 −6 . Noncancer contaminant (Total class D PAHs) soil performance standards were developed based on a noncancer health hazard quotient of 0.1. Soil performance standards also assumed future commercial/industrial use for the properties south and immediately north of I-90. The soil performance standards established in the ROD are:

• PCP <48 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg)

• Total class B2 PAHs (carcinogen or suspected carcinogen) <15 mg/kg

• Total class D PAHs (non-carcinogen) <145 mg/kg

• TCDD TEQ (dioxin toxicity equivalent) <1.0 × 10 −3 mg/kg (1.0 µg/kg)

The NAPL contaminated area was also revised in the ROD to cover 7.4 acres and assumed 39,304 cubic yards of contaminated soil exceeded soil performance standards. The ROD also assumed that the soil component and the groundwater component of the selected remedy would operate simultaneously to eliminate the PAHs, PCP and TCDDs that may continue to migrate downward from the unsaturated soils to the saturated subsurface soils and groundwater, and to remove as much of the contamination that is already present in the saturated subsurface soils and groundwater to the extent practicable.

The EPA initiated negotiations with the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for implementation of the remedy after issuance of the ROD. The PRPs identified were the Idaho Pole Company and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), as successor to the Northern Pacific Railway Company. The negotiations were unsuccessful and consequently the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order for Remedial Design/Remedial Action (EPA Docket No. CERCLA VIII-93-26) with an effective date of August 26, 1993. Remedial Design commenced on February 23, 1994 with EPA approval of the Remedial Design Work Plan.

The findings of additional studies conducted during the Remedial Design included modifications to the soil remedy design which were not included in the 1992 ROD. These modifications were made through an Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) in 1996 and are listed below.

• Based on the subsurface conditions under I-90 and the Pressure Plant, the EPA and MDEQ, formerly MDHES, determined that the hot water/steam flushing system called for in the ROD could not be implemented. These subsurface conditions included the Site geology, obstructions under the Pressure Plant foundation, and less oily wood-treating fluid than originally anticipated in the ROD. The EPA and MDEQ approved an alternative plan that increased the area within which soils were excavated by adding the accessible plant area soils and Cedar Street soils that exceeded the PCP performance standard of 48 mg/kg for soils. Soil flushing with ambient temperature water mixed with nutrients underneath the plant structures and I-90 would be designed as part of the groundwater remedy.

• Closer evaluation of the existing and additional data collected post-ROD indicated that the ROD cleanup levels were not exceeded in the East Gallatin Substation ditch. Therefore, no ditch sediments needed to be excavated.

• A Land Treatment Unit (LTU) was to be constructed in the southeast corner of the pole storage yard and the excavated soil from all targeted areas of the Site were to be screened to remove rocks and placed directly on the LTU. The total soil depth on the LTU was to be less than two feet. The LTU would operate to treat the soils to approximately one foot in depth and the soils would be removed when ROD performance standards were met.

• The treated soils may be used for fill material on excavated areas of the Site. If the soil contains other contaminants ( e.g., dioxins/furans) that exceed the ROD performance standards after treatment, the treated soil will be isolated from groundwater; will be covered with a minimum of twelve inches at the surface to prevent direct contact and Institutional Controls on future land use will be required. A detailed closure plan for the LTU will be developed when soil monitoring results indicate that the cleanup levels for PCP and PAHs have been achieved. The closure plan will identify the areas to be backfilled with the treated soil and will specify separation from groundwater and the depth of cover required. The plan will also identify the specific Institutional Controls to be implemented on the Site.

In the fall of 1997, IPC announced that it would terminate wood treatment operations. This had the potential to change the scope of the remedial action which required another ESD. The significant difference between the remedy described in the 1992 ROD and in the 1998 ESD was that the existing plant structures, including concrete pads, piping, vaults, etc., preventing access to contaminated soil, were to be demolished and disposed of in accordance with State of Montana and EPA requirements. Contaminated soils underlying these areas were to be excavated and treated in the LTU like the accessible soils elsewhere at the facility had been treated to date.

The soil remedy identified in EPA's ROD and supplemented in the subsequent ESDs was implemented between July 1995 and October 2002. The remedy included construction of a lined LTU and a retention pond to collect any runoff from the LTU; excavation of soils in the accessible areas of the Site, as well as de-rocking and transportation of excavated soils to the LTU. The LTU was constructed per EPA approved plans and specifications. The soils were treated in the LTU until ROD performance standards for PCPs and PAHs were met at which time they were placed in the excavated areas on-site above historic high groundwater levels and clean soil placed on top. The ROD contemplated pre-treatment of the excavated soils to remove NAPL prior to placement in the LTU. However, this step was determined to not be necessary because there was insufficient NAPL in the excavated soil to remove.

Approximately 14,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil were placed in the LTU in 1995. The soils were excavated from six areas at the Site: The Pressure Plant Area, beneath Cedar Street, the Barkfill Area, the Roundhouse Area, the Cedar Street Ditch and the Pasture Area. The majority of soils in the Barkfill and Pasture Areas were contaminated by NAPL smearing of the saturated subsurface soils. Clean overburden above the saturated soils was stripped off in these locations and stockpiled for use as backfill. The exposed NAPL impacted silty clay layer located just below and above the water table was then excavated and placed in the LTU. Excavated soils were treated in the LTU by tilling, irrigation and nutrient addition with a retention pond collecting any excess water, which was subsequently treated in the groundwater recovery system. Prior to placement of contaminated soils into the LTU, the excavated soils were de-rocked, the rock cleaned and stockpiled for later use. The clean overburden acquired during the excavation of the Barkfill and Pasture Areas was used as fill in the Pasture Area, the Roundhouse, Cedar Street and Cedar Street ditch excavations so that there were no open excavated areas filled with groundwater during soil treatment in the LTU except near the facilities.

The first phase of soils excavated in 1995 were treated in two 10-inch-thick lifts. The first lift included approximately 4,900 cubic yards which met ROD performance standards for PCP and PAH by 1998. A workplan to remove the upper lift from the LTU was approved by the EPA on March 2, 1999. Removal and placement of these treated soils in the Barkfill and Pressure Plant Areas was completed by June 1999. Prior to placement of treated soils in the Barkfill and Pressure Plant Areas, the stockpiled clean rock was used as backfill for the excavation. Imported clean borrow was also placed on top of the rock and compacted prior to placement of treated soils in the excavated pits since the majority of clean overburden was used to backfill several unsecured excavation areas in 1995.

After the first lift was removed, an additional 5,000 cubic yards of impacted soil under the Pressure Plant was excavated. These soils were loaded on the LTU for treatment in 1999 after the remaining buildings and infrastructure associated with wood treatment operations were demolished and properly disposed off-site. Soils were managed in the LTU for a few more years before ROD performance standards were achieved.

An LTU Closure Work Plan was submitted to the EPA in February 2002 and was approved in July 2002. The LTU closure activities were conducted in accordance with the approved LTU Closure Work Plan. Closure activities were based on the September 2000 excavated soil analytical results being below the ROD soil treatment goals for PCP and PAHs. Dioxin/furan levels calculated as TCDD TEQ remained above the ROD performance standards in the treated soils. Sample results ranged from 1.0 to 5.0 microgram/kilogram (µg/kg) expressed as TCDD TEQ. The 1996 ESD specified that the treated soils may be used for fill material on excavated areas of the Site. If the soil contains other contaminants ( e.g., dioxins/furans) that exceed the ROD performance standards after treatment, the treated soil would be isolated from groundwater and covered with a minimum of twelve inches at the surface to prevent direct contact. Institutional Controls on future land use would also be implemented.

The LTU was subsequently decommissioned and closed in accordance with the EPA-approved closure plan. The construction, operation and closure of the LTU is documented in the LTU Closure Completion Report. The LTU liner was taken out, rinsed and disposed of off-site. The clean soils that were excavated to construct the berm around the LTU and retention pond were used to close the LTU. These soils were graded flat upon removal of the LTU leachate collection system, filter fabric and liner. Fifteen thousand cubic yards of soil used in the construction of the LTU were placed across the LTU area and re-contoured for drainage control, and future reuse of the location.

The majority of the approximately 41 acres south of I-90 was used to store whitewood prior to treatment. Therefore, a location south of the former Pressure Plant that was determined to be clean during the remedial investigation was identified as a suitable location to place the remaining treated soils from the LTU (plus an additional 5,240 cubic yards of drainage sand that was placed at the bottom of the LTU to facilitate drainage).

Two pits were excavated in an area south of the former Pressure Plant for placement of the treated soils and drainage sand. Treated soils were placed in these excavated areas above historic groundwater levels. After treated soil was placed in the pits, sand and filter fabric were placed in the Pit Area and compacted. A twelve to fifteen-inch cover of clean fill material was then placed over the Pit Area. Approximately 4,440 cys of clean fill material excavated originally from the Pit Area were placed as the final soil cover. The soil cover was placed to prevent direct contact risk with the treated soil as described in the Remedial Action Objectives. Cap thickness was verified with a pre and post excavation survey of the Pit Area.

While no samples were taken to confirm the concentrations in the soils used to cover the treated soils, the area south of the former pressure plant was used for whitewood storage and samples collected during the remedial investigation at surface and depth from test pits in the area showed these areas to be clean. As there is no record in the site file showing that samples of this overburden were analyzed for dioxins/furans, five-point composite surface soil samples were collected from the soil cover from four locations on-site in June 2018 and analyzed for dioxins/furans. The TCDD TEQs calculated for the four surface soil sample results ranged from 0.012 µg/kg to 0.570 µg/kg—below the ROD performance standard of 1.0 µg/kg.

While the ROD performance standards for PCP and PAHs were achieved through biological treatment, performance standards for dioxins/furans expressed as TCDD TEQs (dioxin toxicity equivalents) were not. Even though the TCDD TEQ concentrations in the treated soils exceed the soil performance standards established in the 1992 ROD, the soils remedy is protective of human health and the environment because no exposure pathways exist since the treated soils have been placed above historic groundwater levels; have clean soil on top as a cover; and Institutional Controls (ICs) discussed later are in place that restricts land use in the 4.5 acre Treated Soils Area.

No further or ongoing surface and unsaturated subsurface soil operation and maintenance activities are required other than maintaining ICs and ensuring that a protective cover remains over areas where treated soils have been placed. It is the responsibility of McFarland Cascade, the parent company of IPC, their successors and assigns to ensure that the integrity of the soil component of the remedial action is maintained as long as the treated soils at the Site do not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Five composite samples were collected at depth from the treated soils area in October 2017 to determine if the treated soils met ROD performance standards for TCDDs. Samples collected at four of the five sample locations exceeded the ROD performance standards of 1.0 µg/kg. Values ranged from 0.69 µg/kg to 2.9 µg/kg. These results support the need to continue to have Institutional Controls and a protective cover in place to ensure that soil remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.

A Notice of Institutional Control was filed with the Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder in 2010 that applies covenants, conditions and restrictions that run with the land and are binding on IPC, their successors and assigns, and any subsequent interest owner of the property. These include restrictions on new construction and excavation on the 4.5-acre area where treated soils were placed. Restrictions on use of groundwater on all IPC property were also included as a restriction. These restrictions ensure protection of the integrity of the remedial actions. This notice and corresponding attachments are included with the property deed records and fulfills the land use restrictions specified in the 1992 ROD and 1996 ESD.

A Controlled Groundwater Use Area was created in 2001 under State law that includes the IPC Site and the nearby residential properties north of I-90, east and west of L Street and south and north of Rocky Creek. The purpose of the Controlled Groundwater Use Area designation is to prevent construction of new wells, where the consumption of groundwater may pose a threat to human health, and to protect the groundwater remedy.

The first five-year review of the remedial action was completed in September 2000. The results of this review noted that the remedies for soil were protective of human health and the environment because all accessible soils exceeding ROD performance standards had been excavated and placed in the LTU. At the time of the first review, the LTU had also successfully treated one lift, and the treatment of all of the contaminated soils was predicted to be complete within two years.

The second five-year review was completed in August 2005. The results of this review indicated that the soil remedy continues to be protective of human health and the environment. The soil component of the remedy achieved the performance standards for PCP and PAHs as specified in the 1992 ROD, and the LTU was dismantled and closed. Dioxin/furan levels expressed as TCDD TEQs (dioxin toxicity equivalent) remained above the ROD performance standards, but these soils were placed above the historic groundwater table and covered with a minimum of twelve inches of soil per the 1996 ESD. A deed notification was also filed was filed with Gallatin County in 2004 that placed use restrictions on those areas where waste was left in place above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

The third five-year review was completed in September 2010. The results of this review indicated that the remedies for soil continue to be protective of human health and the environment in the short-term. The remedy at the soils component currently protects human health and the environment because soils have been treated to ROD standards and placed back on-site with a protective cover of clean soil placed over these treated soils. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, an enforceable Institutional Control needed to be placed on the property. Although a deed notification had been in place since 2004, it was determined to not be protective of the remedy. A Notice of Institutional Controls was filed with Gallatin County in September 2010 that follows Montana Code Annotated 76-7-201, and addressed the deficiencies identified in the previous deed notification.

The fourth five-year review was completed in August 2015. While a site-wide protectiveness determination could not be made due to insufficient data available to evaluate the groundwater remedy, there were no issues or recommendations in the five-year review related to the soil remedy. The additional data have since been collected and reviewed and an addendum to the five-year review was issued on March 11, 2019 that determined the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

The next five-year review is scheduled to be completed in September 2020.

Prior public participation requirements have been satisfied as set forth in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Major community involvement activities at the Site included establishing a local presence by meeting with property owners and concerned citizens. Outreach efforts included community interviews, fact sheets, public meetings, neighborhood meetings, public comment periods and website updates. The most recent fact sheet was sent out in November 2017 and the last public meeting was held in December 2017. The City and County Commissioners were briefed in December 2017 and the Gallatin City-County Board of Health was briefed in February 2018. The partial deletion of the surface and unsaturated subsurface soils component of the IPC Site was discussed at these meetings and presented in EPA's fact sheet.

Documents in the partial deletion docket that the EPA relied on for recommending the partial deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the information repositories, and a notice of availability of the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion has been published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle to satisfy public participation procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4).

The implemented soil remedy achieves the Remedial Action Objectives specified in EPA's 1992 ROD and the subsequent ESDs for all soil pathways of exposure. No further Superfund responses are needed to protect human health and the environment at the Site.

The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a portion of a site may be deleted from the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. The EPA, in consultation with the State of Montana, has determined that all required response actions have been implemented for the soil component of the remedy and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.

NMFS and the Council manage the Gulf reef fish fishery under the FMP. The FMP, which includes red grouper, was prepared by the Council and is implemented by NMFS through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ).

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems.

All weights described in this proposed rule are in gutted weight.

The stock status of Gulf red grouper was last evaluated in 2015 through the Southeast Data Assessment Review (SEDAR) 42 stock assessment. The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the assessment results and agreed with the assessment's determination that red grouper were not overfished or experiencing overfishing. At that time, the SSC recommended increases in the overfishing limit and the acceptable biological catch (ABC), which were the basis for the commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs in place prior to the 2019 emergency rule.

Based on this assessment, the red grouper commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs were implemented through a framework action to the FMP in 2016 (81 FR 70365, October 12, 2016). These values were based on a red grouper stock ACL equal to 10.70 million lb (4.85 million kg). The current sector allocation for red grouper is 76 percent commercial and 24 percent recreational, and the commercial and recreational ACTs reduce the sector-specific ACLs by 95 percent and 92 percent, respectively. Prior to the 2019 emergency rule, as of 2018, the red grouper commercial ACL in effect was 8,190,000 lb (3,714,922 kg) and the commercial ACT (commercial quota) was 7,780,000 lb (3,528,949 kg); while the red grouper recreational ACL in effect was 2,580,000 lb (1,170,268 kg) and the recreational ACT was 2,370,000 lb (1,075,014 kg).

At the October 2018 meeting, the Council requested that NMFS implement an emergency or interim rule to reduce the Gulf red grouper stock ACL for the 2019 fishing year to 4.60 million lb (2.09 million kg), or equal to the 2017 total red grouper landings level, whichever is less. The Council also began work on this red grouper framework action to reduce the red grouper catch limits beyond 2019. The Council took these actions based on recent information regarding the health of the stock. Since 2014, combined commercial and recreational Gulf red grouper landings have trended downwards from over 7.26 million lb (3.29 million kg) in 2014 to approximately 4.16 million lb (1.89 million kg) in 2017, an indication that the stock may be in decline. The most recent red grouper stock assessment, SEDAR 61, will not be completed until later in 2019. Therefore, the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) conducted an interim red grouper stock analysis to assist the SSC in developing harvest advice for 2019. This analysis suggested that the stock may be declining and supported recommending that the Council reduce the 2019 Gulf red grouper total ACL to 4.60 million lb (2.09 million kg). The Council received this advice at its meeting in October 2018.

In addition to the SSC's advice based on the interim analysis, the Council heard public testimony at the October 2018 meeting primarily from commercial fishermen. These fishermen expressed concern about the status of the red grouper stock, noting that red grouper are harder to catch than in previous years and that there appears to be a scarcity of legal-size and larger fish throughout the species' range on the west Florida shelf.

The Council also discussed the severe red tide conditions that occurred off the Florida west coast in the summer and fall of 2018, which may have adversely affected the red grouper stock. Although the impacts of this recent red tide are unknown, the 2009 SEDAR 12 update assessment indicated that a similar red tide event in 2005 reduced the red grouper spawning stock biomass.

The 2017 combined red grouper commercial and recreational landings (approximately 4.16 million lb (1.89 million kg)) are less than the SSC recommended combined ACL of 4.60 million lb (2.09 million kg). Therefore, NMFS implemented an emergency rule (84 FR 22389, May 17, 2019) to reduce the red grouper commercial and recreational ACLs and ACTs consistent with a stock ACL of 4.16 million lb (1.89 million kg). The emergency rule was effective on May 17, 2019, for 180 days (November 13, 2019), although NMFS may extend the emergency rule's effectiveness for a maximum of an additional 186 days. This allows for sufficient time for the Council and NMFS to develop and implement this rule to manage the red grouper stock for the 2020 fishing year and beyond. Without the measures in this current framework action being implemented to supersede the emergency rule's management measures, the sector ACLs and ACTs will increase and revert back to their values in place in 2018, thereby jeopardizing the red grouper stock health.

The commercial sector is managed under an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program. The commercial red grouper quota equals the commercial ACT, and is allocated to red grouper shareholders each year. The commercial IFQ program also serves as the accountability measure (AM) for the commercial sector.

The current recreational AMs specify that if the recreational ACL is reached or projected to be reached, red grouper fishing will be closed to the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year. If the ACL is exceeded in the following fishing year, the level of harvest will be set at the prior year's recreational ACT and the length of the recreational red grouper fishing season will be adjusted based on the amount necessary to ensure red grouper recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACT. If the stock is overfished and an overage occurs, NMFS will reduce the recreational ACL by the amount of the ACL overage in the prior fishing year. The overage adjustment will also apply to the following year's recreational ACT.

For red grouper, this proposed rule would continue the red grouper ACLs and ACTs implemented by the emergency rule for the 2019 fishing year. Based on the framework action, the stock ACL would be 4.16 million lb (1.89 million kg), which is equal to the combined red grouper commercial and recreational landings. Applying the commercial allocation of 76 percent to the stock ACL of 4.16 million lb (1.89 million kg) would continue the commercial ACL of 3.16 million lb (1.43 million kg) that was set in the emergency rule. The commercial ACT would be set at 95 percent of the commercial ACL, or 3.00 million lb (1.36 million kg).

For the recreational sector, 24 percent of the 4.16 million lb (1.89 million kg) proposed total stock ACL results in a recreational ACL of 1.00 million lb (0.45 million kg). The recreational ACT would be set at 92 percent of the recreational ACL, or 0.92 million lb (0.42 million kg).

The continuation of the ACLs and ACTs implemented through the emergency action and proposed in this rule are expected to benefit the stock. As described in the framework action, indicators suggest the stock may be in decline and that harvest levels need to be lowered. The actual stock condition is currently being evaluated through SEDAR 61 and the Council's SSC is expected to subsequently make an ABC recommendation. The reductions in ACLs and ACTs by this proposed rule are expected by the Council to lessen the impact of any possible future reductions in the ACLs and ACTs in response to the information and management advice (ABC) derived from SEDAR 61.

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), as required by section 603 of the RFA, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, the objectives of, and legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). A summary of the IRFA follows.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. A description of this proposed rule and its purpose and need are contained in the SUMMARY section of the preamble.

The rule concerns recreational and commercial fishing for red grouper in Federal waters of the Gulf. It directly affects both anglers (recreational fishers) and commercial fishing businesses that harvest red grouper in the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and IFQ shareholders of the commercial red grouper annual quota.

Anglers are not considered small entities as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6), whether fishing from for-hire fishing, private or leased vessels. Therefore, neither estimates of the number of anglers nor the impacts on them are required or provided in this analysis.

Any business that operates a commercial fishing vessel that harvests red grouper in the Gulf EEZ must have a valid Gulf reef fish permit attached to that vessel and the vessel permit must be linked to an IFQ account.

From 2013 through 2017, an annual average of 376 permitted vessels had IFQ landings of red grouper. An estimated 330 businesses own those vessels that land red grouper annually. All of these businesses operate in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS code 11411), but some also in related industries, such as fish and seafood merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 424460) and fish and seafood (retail) markets (NAICS code 445220). However, all are expected to operate primarily in the commercial fishing industry.

For RFA purposes, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily involved in commercial fishing (NAICS 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. A preliminary examination of annual dockside revenues of vessels owned by the above businesses indicates the total annual revenue of each business to be less than $11 million. Consequently, all of the businesses directly affected by the proposed action are identified as small.

An emergency rule reduced both the red grouper commercial ACL and commercial ACT in 2019. This rule would reduce both the red grouper commercial ACL and commercial ACT beyond 2019: The ACL from 8.19 million lb (3.71 million kg) to 3.16 million lb (1.43 million kg), and the ACT (quota) from 7.78 million lb (3.53 million kg) to 3.00 million lb (1.36 million kg). That is a quota reduction of 4.78 million lb (2.17 million kg), which is a 61.44 percent decrease.

The maximum loss of commercial landings would be 4.78 million lb (2.17 million kg). At an average dockside price of $4.11 per lb, the maximum annual loss of total revenue would be approximately $19.65 million (2018 $). However, annual commercial landings of red grouper have been less than the quota and declining.

From 2013 through 2017, average annual landings totaled 4.56 million lb (2.07 million kg). If future annual landings are consistent with that average, this rule would reduce commercial landings by 1,564,953 lb (709,851 kg) and associated dockside revenue by approximately $6.43 million, a 34.3 percent decrease. The average loss for each of the 330 small businesses would be $19,491 (2018 $), and for each of the 376 vessels, $17,106. However, not all vessels or small businesses are the same. From 2013 through 2017, vessels that used bottom longline gear had 65.5 percent of the red grouper landings, those with bandit gear had 21.5 percent, hand hook-and-line 11.0 percent, and other gears 2.0 percent. If those percentages apply in the future, the average vessel would experience a loss of total annual revenue ranging from 7.3 percent to 28.0 percent, depending on the gear used. Those percentages presume the average dockside price of red grouper stays at the 2018 level of $4.11; however, the decrease in supply is expected to raise that price, which would reduce the adverse economic impact.

Nonetheless, NMFS concludes that this rule would have a significant economic impact on the average annual 330 commercial fishing businesses and their combined 376 federally permitted fishing vessels that harvest red grouper from the Gulf of Mexico.

Two alternatives were considered but not selected by the Council. The first alternative, the status quo, would keep the commercial quota at its current level and would have no impact on small businesses. However, it would be expected to have the greatest adverse long-term impact. The second alternative would have a smaller adverse economic impact than the selected action because the reduction of the quota is less: 3.32 million lb (1.51 million kg) versus 3.16 million lb (1.43 million kg). However, that second non-selected alternative could generate a smaller long-term benefit than the selected alternative.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:

The revision reads as follows:

The revision reads as follows: