[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44923]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18219]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0322; FRL-9931-12-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Oregon:
Grants Pass Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a carbon monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for Grants
Pass, submitted on April 22, 2015, by the State of Oregon as a revision
to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). In accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is proposing to
approve this SIP revision because it demonstrates that Grants Pass will
continue to meet the carbon monoxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for a second 10-year period beyond re-designation,
through 2025.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0322, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov:
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Lucy Edmondson, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste
and Toxics, AWT-150, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101. Attention: Lucy Edmondson, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics, AWT-150. Such deliveries are only accepted during
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lucy Edmondson at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the
direct final rule, of the same title, which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register. The EPA is simultaneously approving
the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal
because the EPA views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval
is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule. If the EPA
receives no adverse comments, the EPA will not take further action on
this proposed rule.
    If the EPA receives adverse comments, the EPA will withdraw the
direct final rule and it will not take effect. The EPA will address all
public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.
The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    Dated: July 8, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2015-18219 Filed 7-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 171 (Thursday, September 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53377-53381]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21866]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IC-31799; File No. 812-14396]

Full Circle Capital Corporation et al.; Notice of Application

August 28, 2015.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application for an order pursuant to section 57(i) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') and rule 17d-1 under
the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by
section 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.

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

SUMMARY: Applicants request an order to permit a business development
company (``BDC'') and certain affiliated investment funds to co-invest
in portfolio companies with each other and with other affiliated
investment funds.

APPLICANTS: Full Circle Capital Corporation (the ``Company''), Full
Circle Private Investments LLC (``FCPI Fund''), Full Circle Healthcare
Capital, LLC (the ``Healthcare Fund,'' and together with FCPI Fund, the
``Existing Funds''), Full Circle Advisors, LLC (the ``Adviser''), Full
Circle West, Inc., FC New Media, Inc., TransAmerican Asset Servicing
Group, Inc., FC New Specialty Foods, Inc. and FC Takoda Holdings, LLC,
(collectively, the ``Full Circle Subsidiaries,'' and together with the
Company, the Existing Funds and the Adviser, the ``Applicants'').

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on December 4, 2014 and
amended on May 1, 2015.

HEARING OR NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on September 22, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
St., NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

Applicants: 102 Greenwich Avenue, 2nd Floor, Greenwich, CT 06830.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle R. Ahlgren, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6857 or Holly Hunter-Ceci, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Chief Counsel's Office, Division of Investment Management).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Company is a Maryland corporation organized as a closed-end
management investment company that has elected to be regulated as a BDC
under section 54(a) of the Act.\1\ The Company's Objectives and
Strategies \2\ are to generate both current income and capital
appreciation through debt and equity investments, primarily in senior
secured loans and, to a lesser extent, second lien loans and mezzanine
loans and equity securities issued by lower middle-market companies
that operate in a diverse range of industries. The Company has a six-
member board of directors (the ``Board''), of which four members are
not ``interested persons'' of the Company within the meaning of section
2(a)(19) of the Act (the ``Independent Directors'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 2(a)(48) of the Act defines a BDC to be any closed-
end investment company that operates for the purpose of making
investments in securities described in sections 55(a)(1) through
55(a)(3) of the Act and makes available significant managerial
assistance with respect to the issuers of such securities.
    \2\ ``Objectives and Strategies'' means a fund's investment
objectives and strategies, as described in the fund's registration
statement on Form N-2, other filings the fund has made with the
Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, or under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the fund's reports to shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. FCPI Fund is a Delaware limited liability company managed by the
Adviser that has not yet held a closing and currently has no
investments. FCPI Fund's investment objective is to generate both
current income and capital appreciation through debt and equity
investments. The Healthcare Fund is a Delaware limited liability
company managed by the Adviser that has not yet held a closing and
currently has no investments. The Healthcare Fund's investment
objective is to generate both current income and capital appreciation
through debt and equity investments in the healthcare industry. Each
Existing Fund intends to rely on the exclusion from the definition of
``investment company'' provided by section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the
Act.
    3. Each Full Circle Subsidiary is a Delaware entity and Wholly-
Owned Investment Sub \3\ whose assets are managed by the Adviser and
whose sole business purpose is to hold one or more investments on
behalf of the Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Wholly-Owned Investment Sub'' means an entity (a)
whose sole business purpose is to hold one or more investments on
behalf of the Company (and, in the case of an SBIC Subsidiary (as
defined below), maintain a license under the SBA Act (as defined
below) and issue debentures guaranteed by the SBA (as defined
below)); (b) that is wholly-owned by the Company (with the Company
at all times holding, beneficially and of record, 100% of the voting
and economic interests), (c) with respect to which the Board has the
sole authority to make all determinations with respect to the
entity's participation under the conditions to the Application; and
(d) that would be an investment company but for section 3(c)(1) or
3(c)(7) of the Act. All subsidiaries of the Company participating in
co-investment transactions under the terms of the Application will
be Wholly-Owned Investment Subs and will have Objectives and
Strategies that are either the same as, or a subset of, the
Company's Objectives and Strategies. The term ``SBIC Subsidiary''
means a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub that is licensed by the Small
Business Administration (the ``SBA'') to operate under the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, (the ``SBA Act'') as a
small business investment company (an ``SBIC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The Adviser is a privately-held Delaware limited liability
company registered with the Commission as an investment adviser under
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Adviser serves as investment
adviser to the Company and to each Existing Fund.
    5. Applicants seek an order (``Order'') under sections 57(a)(4) and
57(i) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to allow the Company, on
one hand, and one or more Funds,\4\ on the other hand, to participate
in the same investment opportunities through a proposed co-investment
program (the ``Co-Investment Program'') where such participation would
otherwise be prohibited under section 57(a)(4) and rule 17d-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Fund'' means: (i) The Existing Funds; and (ii) any Future
Fund. ``Future Fund'' means an entity: (i) Whose investment adviser
is the Adviser; and (ii) that would be an investment company but for
section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act. All existing entities that
currently intend to rely upon the requested Order have been named as
applicants. Any other existing or future entity that subsequently
relies on the Order will comply with the terms and conditions of the
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Applicants state that the Company may, from time to time, form a
Wholly-Owned Investment Sub, each of which would be prohibited from
investing in a Co-Investment Transaction \5\ with any Fund because it
would be a company controlled by the Company for purposes of section
57(a)(4) and rule 17d-1. Applicants request that each Wholly-Owned
Investment Sub be permitted to participate in Co-Investment
Transactions in lieu of the Company and that the Wholly-Owned
Investment Sub's participation in any such transaction be treated, for
purposes of the Order, as though the Company were participating
directly. Applicants represent that this treatment is justified because
a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub would have no purpose other than serving
as a holding vehicle for the Company's investments and, therefore, no
conflicts of interest could arise between the Company and the Wholly-
Owned Investment Sub. Applicants further represent that the Board would
make all relevant determinations under the conditions with regard to a
Wholly-Owned Investment Sub's participation in a Co-Investment
Transaction, and the Board would be informed of, and take into
consideration, any proposed use of a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub in the
Company's place. If the Company proposes to participate in the same Co-
Investment Transaction with any of its Wholly-Owned Investment Subs,
the Board will also be informed of, and take into consideration, the
relative participation of the Company and the Wholly-Owned Investment
Sub.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Co-Investment Transaction'' means any transaction in which
the Company (or a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub) participated together
with one or more Funds in reliance on the requested Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The Co-Investment Program requires that the terms, conditions,
price, class of securities, settlement date, and registration rights
applicable to any of the Funds' purchases be the same as those
applicable to the Company's purchase. In selecting investments for the
Company, the Adviser will consider only the investment objective,
investment policies, investment position, capital available for
investment (``Available Capital''),\6\ and other pertinent factors
applicable to the Company. Likewise, when selecting investments for the
Funds, the Adviser will select investments considering, in each case,
only the investment objective, investment policies, investment
position, Available Capital, and other pertinent factors applicable to
that

particular investing entity. Each of the Funds has, or will have,
investment objectives and strategies that are similar or identical to
the Company's Objectives and Strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The amount of the Company's Available Capital will be
determined based on the amount of cash on hand, existing commitments
and reserves, if any, the targeted leverage level, targeted asset
mix and other investment policies and restrictions set from time to
time by the Board or imposed by applicable laws, rules, regulations
or interpretations. Likewise, a Fund's Available Capital is
determined based on the amount of cash on hand, existing commitments
and reserves, if any, the targeted leverage level, targeted asset
mix and other investment policies and restrictions set by the Fund's
directors, general partners or adviser or imposed by applicable
laws, rules, regulations or interpretations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Other than pro rata dispositions and Follow-On Investments \7\
as provided in conditions 7 and 8, and after making the determinations
required in conditions 1 and 2(a), the Adviser will present each
Potential Co-Investment Transaction \8\ and the proposed allocation to
the directors of the Board eligible to vote under section 57(o) of the
Act (``Eligible Directors''), and the ``required majority,'' as defined
in section 57(o) of the Act (``Required Majority'') \9\ will approve
each Co-Investment Transaction prior to any investment by the Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Follow-On Investment'' means any additional investment in
an existing portfolio company, including the exercise of warrants,
conversion privileges or other similar rights to acquire additional
securities of the portfolio company.
    \8\ ``Potential Co-Investment Transaction'' means any investment
opportunity in which the Company (or a Wholly-Owned Investment Sub)
could not participate together with one or more Funds without
obtaining and relying on the Order.
    \9\ In the case of a Regulated Fund that is a registered closed-
end fund, the Board members that make up the Required Majority will
be determined as if the Regulated Fund were a BDC subject to section
57(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. With respect to the pro rata dispositions and Follow-On
Investments provided in conditions 7 and 8, the Company may participate
in a pro rata disposition or Follow-On Investment without obtaining
prior approval of the Required Majority, if, among other things: (i)
The proposed participation of each Fund and the Company in such
disposition or Follow-On Investment is proportionate to its outstanding
investments in the issuer immediately preceding the disposition or
Follow-On Investment, as the case may be; and (ii) the Board has
approved the Company's participation in pro rata dispositions and
Follow-On Investments as being in the best interests of the Company. If
the Board does not so approve, any such disposition or Follow-On
Investment will be submitted to the Eligible Directors. The Board may
at any time rescind, suspend or qualify its approval of pro rata
dispositions and Follow-On Investments with the result that all
dispositions and/or Follow-On Investments must be submitted to the
Eligible Directors.
    10. No Independent Director will have any direct or indirect
financial interest in any Co-Investment Transaction or any interest in
any portfolio company, other than through an interest (if any) in the
securities of the Company.
    11. Under condition 14, if the Adviser, the principals of the
Adviser (``Principals''), any person controlling, controlled by, or
under common control with the Adviser or the Principals, and the Funds
(collectively, the ``Holders'') own in the aggregate more than 25% of
the outstanding voting securities of the Company (``Shares''), then the
Holders will vote such Shares as directed by an independent third party
(such as the trustee of a voting trust or a proxy adviser) when voting
on (1) the election of directors; (2) the removal of one or more
directors; or (3) any matters requiring approval by the vote of a
majority of the outstanding voting securities, as defined in Section
2(a)(42) of the Act.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 57(a)(4) of the Act makes it unlawful for any person who
is related to a BDC in a manner described in section 57(b), acting as
principal, knowingly to effect any transaction in which the BDC is a
joint or a joint and several participant with that person in
contravention of rules and regulations as the Commission may prescribe
for the purpose of limiting or preventing participation by the BDC on a
basis less advantageous than that of the other participant. Although
the Commission has not adopted any rules expressly under section
57(a)(4), section 57(i) provides that the rules under section 17(d)
applicable to registered closed-end investment companies (e.g., rule
17d-1) are, in the interim, deemed to apply to transactions subject to
section 57(a). Rule 17d-1, as made applicable to BDCs by section 57(i),
prohibits any person who is related to a BDC in a manner described in
section 57(b), acting as principal, from participating in, or effecting
any transaction in connection with, any joint enterprise or other joint
arrangement or profit-sharing plan in which the BDC is a participant,
unless an application regarding the joint enterprise, arrangement, or
profit-sharing plan has been filed with the Commission and has been
granted by an order entered prior to the submission of the plan or any
modification thereof, to security holders for approval, or prior to its
adoption or modification if not so submitted.
    2. Section 57(b) specifies the persons to whom the prohibitions of
section 57(a)(4) apply. These persons include the following: (1) Any
director, officer, employee, or member of an advisory board of a BDC or
any person (other than the BDC itself) who is, within the meaning of
section 2(a)(3)(C), an affiliated person of any such person; or (2) any
investment adviser or promoter of, general partner in, principal
underwriter for, or person directly or indirectly either controlling,
controlled by, or under common control with a BDC (except the BDC
itself and any person who, if it were not directly or indirectly
controlled by the BDC, would not be directly or indirectly under the
control of a person who controls the BDC), or any person who is, within
the meaning of section 2(a)(3)(C) an affiliated person of such person.
Section 2(a)(9) defines ``control'' as the power to exercise a
controlling influence over the management or policies of a company,
unless such power is solely the result of an official position with
such company. The statute also sets forth the interpretation that any
person who owns beneficially, either directly or through one or more
controlled companies, more than 25 percent of the voting securities of
a company shall be presumed to control such company; any person who
does not so own more than 25 percent of the voting securities of a
company shall be presumed not to control such company; and a natural
person shall be presumed not to be a controlled person.
    3. Applicants state that in the absence of the requested relief,
transactions effected as part of the Co-Investment Program would be
prohibited by section 57(a)(4) and rule 17d-1 to the extent that the
Funds fall within the category of persons described by section 57(b)
vis-[agrave]-vis the Company. The Existing Funds may be deemed to be
affiliated persons of the Company within the meaning of section
2(a)(3)(C) by reason of common control because the Adviser manages and
may be deemed to control the Company and the Existing Funds. Similarly,
each Future Fund may be deemed to be an affiliated person of the
Company within the meaning of section 2(a)(3)(C) by reason of common
control because the Adviser will manage and may be deemed to control
each Future Fund. Thus, each of the Funds could be deemed to be a
person related to the Company in a manner described by section 57(b)
and therefore prohibited by section 57(a)(4) and rule 17d-1 from
participating in the Co-Investment Program.
    4. In passing upon applications under rule 17d-1, the Commission
will consider whether the participation by the BDC in such joint
transaction is consistent with the provisions, policies, and purposes
of the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis
different from or less advantageous than that of other participants.
    5. Applicants submit that the fact that the Required Majority will
approve each Co-Investment Transaction before investment, and other
protective conditions set forth in the Application,

will ensure that the Company will be treated fairly. The conditions to
which the requested relief will be subject are designed to ensure that
neither the Adviser nor Principal would be able to favor the Funds over
the Company through the allocation of investment opportunities among
them. Because almost every attractive investment opportunity for the
Company will also be an attractive investment opportunity for the
Funds, Applicants submit that the Co-Investment Program presents an
attractive alternative to the institution of some form of equitable
allocation protocol for the allocation of 100% of individual investment
opportunities to either the Company or the Funds as opportunities
arise. Applicants submit that the Company's participation in the Co-
Investment Transactions will be consistent with the provisions,
policies, and purposes of the Act and on a basis that is not different
from or less advantageous than that of other participants.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that the Order will be subject to the following
conditions:
    1. Each time the Adviser considers a Potential Co-Investment
Transaction for a Fund that falls within the Company's then-current
Objectives and Strategies, the Adviser will make an independent
determination of the appropriateness of the investment for the Company
in light of the Company's then-current circumstances.
    2. (a) If the Adviser deems the Company's participation in any
Potential Co-Investment Transaction to be appropriate for the Company,
it will then determine an appropriate level of investment for the
Company.
    (b) If the aggregate amount recommended by the Adviser to be
invested in the Potential Co-Investment Transaction by the Company,
together with the amount proposed to be invested by the Funds,
collectively, in the same transaction, exceeds the amount of the
investment opportunity, the amount proposed to be invested by each
party will be allocated among them pro rata based on each party's
Available Capital in the asset class being allocated, up to the amount
proposed to be invested by each. The Adviser will provide the Eligible
Directors with information concerning each participating party's
Available Capital to assist the Eligible Directors with their review of
the Company's investments for compliance with these allocation
procedures.
    (c) After making the determinations required in conditions 1 and
2(a), the Adviser will distribute written information concerning the
Potential Co-Investment Transaction (including the amount proposed to
be invested by each Fund) to the Eligible Directors for their
consideration. The Company will co-invest with one or more Funds only
if, prior to participating in the Potential Co- Investment Transaction,
a Required Majority concludes that:
    (i) The terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be
paid, are reasonable and fair to the Company and its shareholders and
do not involve overreaching in respect of the Company or its
shareholders on the part of any person concerned;
    (ii) the Potential Co-Investment Transaction is consistent with:
    (A) The interests of the shareholders of the Company; and
    (B) the Company's then-current Objectives and Strategies;
    (iii) the investment by the Funds would not disadvantage the
Company, and participation by the Company would not be on a basis
different from or less advantageous than that of the Funds; provided
that, if any Fund, but not the Company itself, gains the right to
nominate a director for election to a portfolio company's board of
directors or the right to have a board observer or any similar right to
participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company,
such event will not be interpreted to prohibit the Required Majority
from reaching the conclusions required by this condition (2)(c)(iii),
if
    (A) the Eligible Directors will have the right to ratify the
selection of such director or board observer, if any;
    (B) the Adviser agrees to, and does, provide, periodic reports to
the Board with respect to the actions of the director or the
information received by the board observer or obtained through the
exercise of any similar right to participate in the governance or
management of the portfolio company; and
    (C) any fees or other compensation that any Fund or any affiliated
person of any Fund receives in connection with the right of the Fund to
nominate a director or appoint a board observer or otherwise to
participate in the governance or management of the portfolio company
will be shared proportionately among the participating Funds (who may,
in turn, share their portion with their affiliated persons) and the
Company in accordance with the amount of each party's investment; and
    (iv) the proposed investment by the Company will not benefit the
Adviser or the Funds or any affiliated person of any of them (other
than the parties to the Co-Investment Transaction), except (A) to the
extent permitted by condition 13, (B) to the extent permitted by
section 17(e) or 57(k) of the Act, as applicable, (C) indirectly, as a
result of an interest in the securities issued by one of the parties to
the Co-Investment Transaction, or (D) in the case of fees or other
compensation described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C).
    3. The Company has the right to decline to participate in any
Potential Co-Investment Transaction or to invest less than the amount
proposed.
    4. The Adviser will present to the Board, on a quarterly basis, a
record of all investments in Potential Co-Investment Transactions made
by the Funds during the preceding quarter that fell within the
Company's then-current Objectives and Strategies that were not made
available to the Company, and an explanation of why the investment
opportunities were not offered to the Company. All information
presented to the Board pursuant to this condition will be kept for the
life of the Company and at least two years thereafter, and will be
subject to examination by the Commission and its staff.
    5. Except for Follow-On Investments made in accordance with
condition 8, the Company will not invest in reliance on the Order in
any issuer in which any Fund or any affiliated person of the Funds is
an existing investor.
    6. The Company will not participate in any Potential Co-Investment
Transaction unless the terms, conditions, price, class of securities to
be purchased, settlement date, and registration rights will be the same
for the Company as for the each participating Fund. The grant to a
Fund, but not the Company, of the right to nominate a director for
election to a portfolio company's board of directors, the right to have
an observer on the board of directors or similar rights to participate
in the governance or management of the portfolio company will not be
interpreted so as to violate this condition 6, if conditions
2(c)(iii)(A), (B) and (C) are met.
    7. (a) If any Fund elects to sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of
an interest in a security that was acquired in a Co-Investment
Transaction, the Adviser will:
    (i) Notify the Company of the proposed disposition at the earliest
practical time; and
    (ii) formulate a recommendation as to participation by the Company
in the disposition.
    (b) The Company will have the right to participate in such
disposition on a proportionate basis, at the same price and on the same
terms and conditions

as those applicable to the participating Funds.
    (c) The Company may participate in such disposition without
obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The proposed
participation of the Company and each Fund in such disposition is
proportionate to its outstanding investment in the issuer immediately
preceding the disposition; (ii) the Board has approved as being in the
best interests of the Company the ability to participate in such
dispositions on a pro rata basis (as described in greater detail in the
Application); and (iii) the Board is provided on a quarterly basis with
a list of all dispositions made in accordance with this condition. In
all other cases, the Adviser will provide its written recommendation as
to the Company's participation to the Eligible Directors, and the
Company will participate in such disposition solely to the extent that
a Required Majority determines that it is in the Company's best
interests.
    (d) The Company and each participating Fund will bear its own
expenses in connection with any such disposition.
    8. (a) If any Fund desires to make a Follow-On Investment in a
portfolio company whose securities were acquired in a Co-Investment
Transaction, the Adviser will:
    (i) Notify the Company of the proposed transaction at the earliest
practical time; and
    (ii) formulate a recommendation as to the proposed participation,
including the amount of the proposed Follow-On Investment, by the
Company.
    (b) The Company may participate in such Follow-On Investment
without obtaining prior approval of the Required Majority if: (i) The
proposed participation of the Company and each Fund in such investment
is proportionate to its outstanding investments in the issuer
immediately preceding the Follow-On Investment; and (ii) the Board has
approved as being in the best interests of the Company the ability to
participate in Follow-On Investments on a pro rata basis (as described
in greater detail in the Application). In all other cases, the Adviser
will provide its written recommendation as to the Company's
participation to the Eligible Directors, and the Company will
participate in such Follow-On Investment solely to the extent that a
Required Majority determines that it is in the Company's best
interests.
    (c) If, with respect to any Follow-On Investment:
    (i) The amount of the opportunity is not based on the Company's and
the Funds' outstanding investments immediately preceding the Follow-On
Investment; and
    (ii) the aggregate amount recommended by the Adviser to be invested
by the Company in the Follow-On Investment, together with the amount
proposed to be invested by the participating Funds in the same
transaction, exceeds the amount of the opportunity;

then the amount invested by each such party will be allocated among
them pro rata based on each party's Available Capital in the asset
class being allocated, up to the amount proposed to be invested by
each.
    (d) The acquisition of Follow-On Investments as permitted by this
condition will be considered a Co-Investment Transaction for all
purposes and subject to the other conditions set forth in the
Application.
    9. The Independent Directors will be provided quarterly for review
all information concerning Potential Co-Investment Transactions and Co-
Investment Transactions, including investments made by the Funds that
the Company considered but declined to participate in, so that the
Independent Directors may determine whether all investments made during
the preceding quarter, including those investments that the Company
considered but declined to participate in, comply with the conditions
of the order. In addition, the Independent Directors will consider at
least annually the continued appropriateness for the Company of
participating in new and existing Co-Investment Transactions.
    10. The Company will maintain the records required by section
57(f)(3) as if each of the investments permitted under these conditions
were approved by the Required Majority under section 57(f).
    11. No Independent Director will also be a director, general
partner, managing member or principal, or otherwise an ``affiliated
person'' (as defined in the Act), of any of the Funds.
    12. The expenses, if any, associated with acquiring, holding or
disposing of any securities acquired in a Co-Investment Transaction
(including, without limitation, the expenses of the distribution of any
such securities registered for sale under the 1933 Act) will, to the
extent not payable by the Adviser under its respective investment
advisory agreements with the Company and the Funds, be shared by the
Company and the Funds in proportion to the relative amounts of the
securities held or being acquired or disposed of, as the case may be.
    13. Any transaction fee \10\ (including break-up or commitment fees
but excluding broker's fees contemplated by section 17(e) or 57(k), as
applicable) received in connection with a Co-Investment Transaction
will be distributed to the Company and the participating Funds on a pro
rata basis based on the amounts they invested or committed, as the case
may be, in such Co-Investment Transaction. If any transaction fee is to
be held by the Adviser pending consummation of the transaction, the fee
will be deposited into an account maintained by the Adviser at a bank
or banks having the qualifications prescribed in section 26(a)(1), and
the account will earn a competitive rate of interest that will also be
divided pro rata among the Company and the participating Funds based on
the amounts they invest in such Co-Investment Transaction. None of the
Adviser, the Funds, nor any affiliated person of the Company will
receive additional compensation or remuneration of any kind as a result
of or in connection with a Co-Investment Transaction (other than (a) in
the case of the Company and the participating Funds, the pro rata
transaction fees described above and fees or other compensation
described in condition 2(c)(iii)(C) and (b) in the case of the Adviser,
investment advisory fees paid in accordance with the respective
agreements between the Adviser and the Company or the Funds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Applicants are not requesting and the staff is not
providing any relief for transaction fees received in connection
with any Co-Investment Transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. If the Holders own in the aggregate more than 25% of the
outstanding Shares of a Regulated Fund, then the Holders will vote such
Shares as directed by an independent third party (such as the trustee
of a voting trust or a proxy adviser) when voting on (1) the election
of directors; (2) the removal of one or more directors; or (3) any
matters requiring approval by the vote of a majority of the outstanding
voting securities, as defined in section 2(a)(42) of the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21866 Filed 9-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 54)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14719-14727]
[DOCID:fr19mr08-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-8543-9; EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0685, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0686, EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2007-0687, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0688, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0689, EPA-
HQ-SFUND-2006-0242, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0691, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0692,
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0693, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0694, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0695,
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0696]
RIN 2050-AD75

National Priorities List, Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow EPA to assess the nature and extent of public
health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule adds 12 sites to the General Superfund Section
of the NPL.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP
is April 18, 2008.

ADDRESSES: For addresses for the Headquarters and Regional dockets, as
well as further details on what these dockets contain, see section II,
``Availability of Information to the Public'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>State, Tribal and Site Identification Branch;
Assessment and Remediation Division; Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (mail code 5204P); U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-

9346 or<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What Is the NCP?
    C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?
    E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?
    G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?
    H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are
Cleaned Up?
    I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
    J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure?
II. Availability of Information to the Public
    A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Final Rule?
    B. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Headquarters
Docket?
    C. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Regional
Dockets?
    D. How Do I Access the Documents?
    E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
    A. Additions to the NPL
    B. What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
    2. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule?
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    2. How Has EPA Complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    2. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule?
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Final
Rule?
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
    2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Final Rule?
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    1. What Is Executive Order 13045?
    2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Final Rule?
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
    1. Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Apply to This Final Rule?
    J. Congressional Review Act
    1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to Congress and the General
Accounting Office?
    2. Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change?
    3. What Could Cause a Change in the Effective Date of This Rule?

I. Background

A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?

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

B. What Is the NCP?

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

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

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

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the Hazard
Ranking System (``HRS''), which EPA promulgated as appendix A of the
NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate
the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants
or contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On
December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS
partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised
HRS

evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure,
and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or
greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL; (2) pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
9605(a)(8)(B), each State may designate a single site as its top
priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision
of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one
facility designated by each State as the greatest danger to public
health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the
State. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(2); (3) the third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any
HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release;
     EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat
to public health; and
     EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use
its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to
the release.
    EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?

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

F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?

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

G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?

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

H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites from the NPL as They Are Cleaned
Up?

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

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

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

J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure?

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

II. Availability of Information to the Public

A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Final Rule?

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Site name                        City/State                          FDMS Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lusher Street Ground Water         Elkhart, IN...................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0685.
 Contamination.
Plating, Inc.....................  Great Bend, KS................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0686.
Washington County Lead District--  Old Mines, MO.................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0687.
 Old Mines.
Washington County Lead District--  Potosi, MO....................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0688.
 Potosi.
Washington County Lead District--  Richwoods, MO.................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0689.
 Richwoods.
Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Creek.  Gibbsboro, NJ.................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0242.
Chem-Fab.........................  Doylestown, PA................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0691.
San German Ground Water            San German, PR................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0692.
 Contamination.
Donna Reservoir and Canal System.  Donna, TX.....................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0693.
Midessa Ground Water Plume.......  Odessa, TX....................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0694.
San Jacinto River Waste Pits.....  Harris County, TX.............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0695.
Hidden Lane Landfill.............  Sterling, VA..................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0696.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Headquarters Docket?

    The Headquarters Docket for this rule contains, for each site, the
HRS score sheets, the Documentation Record describing the information
used to compute the score, pertinent information regarding statutory
requirements or EPA listing policies that affect the site, and a list
of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. For sites that
received comments during the comment period, the Headquarters Docket
also contains a Support Document that includes EPA's responses to
comments.

C. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Regional Dockets?

    The Regional Dockets contain all the information in the
Headquarters Docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the
data principally relied upon by EPA in calculating or evaluating the
HRS score for the sites located in their Region. These reference
documents are available only in the Regional Dockets. For sites that
received comments during the comment period, the Regional Docket also
contains a Support Document that includes EPA's responses to comments.

D. How Do I Access the Documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the
publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters
Docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for
hours.
    Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
CERCLA Docket Office, 1301 Constitution Avenue, EPA West, Room 3340,
Washington, DC 20004;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:
Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund
Records and Information Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007-1866;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103;
(215) 814-5364.
Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., 9th floor, Atlanta, GA 30303;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records
Center, Superfund Division SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Mailcode 6SF-RA, Dallas, TX 75202-2733;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, KS 66101;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Dawn Richmond, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail
Stop ECL-115, Seattle, WA 98101;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?

    You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ (look under the Superfund sites category)
or by contacting the Superfund Docket (see contact information above).

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Additions to the NPL

    This final rule adds the following 12 sites to the NPL, all to the
General Superfund Section:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     State                Site name                  City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN.............  Lusher Street Ground Water  Elkhart.
                  Contamination.
KS.............  Plating, Inc..............  Great Bend.
MO.............  Washington County Lead      Old Mines.
                  District--Old Mines.
MO.............  Washington County Lead      Potosi.
                  District--Potosi.
MO.............  Washington County Lead      Richwoods.
                  District--Richwoods.
NJ.............  Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards  Gibbsboro.
                  Creek.
PA.............  Chem-Fab..................  Doylestown.
PR.............  San German Ground Water     San German.
                  Contamination.
TX.............  Donna Reservoir and Canal   Donna.
                  System.
TX.............  Midessa Ground Water Plume  Odessa.
TX.............  San Jacinto River Waste     Harris County.
                  Pits.
VA.............  Hidden Lane Landfill......  Sterling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received?

    EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule and
responded to all relevant comments.
    Four sites had no comments following proposal: Washington County
Lead District--Richwoods (MO), Chem-Fab (PA), Midessa Ground Water
Plume (TX), and Plating, Inc (KS). One comment supporting cleanup was
incorrectly submitted to the Plating, Inc. docket because of an
erroneous docket number, but actually was discussing Hidden Lane
Landfill (VA). Two sites had only comments favoring listing and/or
suggesting cleanup was needed: Lusher Street Ground Water Contamination
(IN) and Donna Reservoir and Canal System (TX). One site, San Jacinto
River Waste Pits (TX), had a number of comments favoring listing and
cleanup. One of the comments urged EPA not only to list the site but
also to consider environmental targets, which were not used in scoring
the site. EPA will change the HRS scoring record to indicate
environmental targets were not scored but should be considered when EPA
performs more extensive investigation under the RI/FS. One other
comment on the site requested an extension of the comment period due to
a delay of one week in receiving materials. EPA extended the comment
period one week but received no additional comments.
    EPA received nine comments on the Hidden Lane Landfill (VA)
proposed site. None of the comments opposed listing; they asked the
site be cleaned up quickly and offered suggestions for how best to
accomplish this. EPA will keep citizens informed of the site
investigation and clean up alternatives, and will offer citizens an
opportunity to comment on cleanup options before final remedies are
determined. One of the nine comments, from the Loudoun County Board of
Supervisors, discussed land use policies and legislative actions by the
county at the site. The comment also specifically stated the county did
not oppose listing, but mentioned several clerical errors in the
documentation record for which the county sought clarification/
correction. None of the errors affected the listing score, but EPA will
make changes in the documentation record to correct the errors, mostly
related to site history and the misidentification of the values for one
sample not used in scoring.
    Four sites received adverse comments on the HRS score and/or
listing. These site comments are being addressed individually in
response to comments documents available concurrently with the
publication of this final rule. These sites are San German Ground Water
Contamination (PR), Washington County Lead District--Old Mines (MO),
Washington County Lead District--Potosi (MO), and Sherwin-Williams/
Hilliards Creek (NJ). Please refer to the docket for EPA's responses to
these comments.
    EPA also received a comment, not directed at any particular site,
for all sites in the April 19, 2006, proposed rule. The comment
suggested that listing is inconsistent with the separation of powers
doctrine and listing these sites should only be done by Congress. The
Supreme Court has stated that ``when Congress confers decision-making
authority upon agencies [it] must lay down by legislative act an
intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to act is
directed to conform.'' Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 531
U.S. 457, 472 (2001) (internal citation and punctuation omitted). The
Court also noted that ``[i]n the history of the Court we have found the
requisite `intelligible principle' lacking in only two statutes, one of
which provided literally no guidance for the exercise of discretion,
and the other of which conferred authority to regulate the entire
economy on the basis of no more precise a standard than stimulating the
economy by assuring `fair competition.' '' Id. at 474. CERCLA section
105(a)(8)(A) provides several considerations for EPA when ``determining
priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United
States'' and listing decisions are based upon these considerations,
under CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B). Accordingly, EPA may properly make
NPL listing determinations.
    All comments that were received by EPA are contained in the
Headquarters Docket and are also listed in EPA's electronic public
Docket and comment system at www.regulations.gov.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
2. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
    No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules,
are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule?
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does
not contain any information collection requirements that require
approval of the OMB.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not
establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet,
and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity,
small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of
hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under
CERCLA section 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether
the site is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this rule
does not impose any requirements on any small entities. For the
foregoing reasons, I certify that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule where a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA
regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
2. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule?
    No, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the
private sector in any one year. This rule will not impose any federal
intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon
State, tribal or local governments. Listing a site on the NPL does not
itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that EPA necessarily
will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by
a private party or determine liability for response costs. Costs that
arise out of site responses result from site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing a
site on the NPL.
    For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the
private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million.
EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Final Rule?
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation. This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply
to this rule.

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

1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Final Rule?
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.

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

1. What Is Executive Order 13045?
    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Final Rule?
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not
an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this section present
a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Usage

 Is this Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to
This Final Rule?
    No. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to Congress and the General Accounting
Office?
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, that includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA has submitted a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A ``major rule''
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
2. Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change?
    Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of
CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation.
    Under the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a), before a rule can take effect the
federal agency promulgating the rule must submit a report to each House
of the Congress and to the Comptroller General. This report must
contain a copy of the rule, a concise general statement relating to the
rule (including whether it is a major rule), a copy of the cost-benefit
analysis of the rule (if any), the agency's actions relevant to
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (affecting small
businesses) and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (describing
unfunded federal requirements imposed on state and local governments
and the private sector), and any other relevant information or
requirements and any relevant Executive Orders.
    EPA has submitted a report under the CRA for this rule. The rule
will take effect, as provided by law, within 30 days of publication of
this document, since it is not a major rule. Section 804(2) defines a
major rule as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) finds has resulted in or is likely to result in: An
annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase
in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal,
State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and
export markets. NPL listing is not a major rule because, as explained
above, the listing, itself, imposes no monetary costs on any person. It
establishes no enforceable duties, does not establish that EPA
necessarily will undertake remedial action, nor does it require any
action by any party or determine its liability for site response costs.
Costs that arise out of site responses result from site-by-site
decisions about what actions to take, not directly from the act of
listing itself. Section 801(a)(3) provides for a delay in the effective
date of major rules after this report is submitted.
3. What Could Cause a Change in the Effective Date of This Rule?
    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1) a rule shall not take effect, or continue
in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint
resolution of disapproval, described under section 802.
    Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA
section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations
promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S.
Ct. 2764 (1983) and Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington v.
EPA, 86 F.3d 1214, 1222 (DC Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the
legislative veto into question, EPA has transmitted a copy of this
regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives.
    If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305
calls the effective date of this regulation into question, EPA will
publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Dated: March 10, 2008.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

0
40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by adding the following
sites in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

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

                              * * * * * * *
IN.......  Lusher Street Ground   Elkhart...........
            Water Contamination.

                              * * * * * * *
KS.......  Plating, Inc.........  Great Bend........

                              * * * * * * *
MO.......  Washington County      Old Mines.........
            Lead District--Old
            Mines.

                              * * * * * * *
MO.......  Washington County      Potosi............
            Lead District--
            Potosi.

                              * * * * * * *
MO.......  Washington County      Richwoods.........
            Lead District--
            Richwoods.

                              * * * * * * *
NJ.......  Sherwin-Williams/      Gibbsboro.........
            Hilliards Creek.

                              * * * * * * *
PA.......  Chem-Fab.............  Doylestown........

                              * * * * * * *
PR.......  San German Ground      San German........
            Water Contamination.

                              * * * * * * *
TX.......  Donna Reservoir and    Donna.............
            Canal System.

                              * * * * * * *
TX.......  Midessa Ground Water   Odessa............
            Plume.

                              * * * * * * *
TX.......  San Jacinto River      Harris County.....
            Waste Pits.

                              * * * * * * *
VA.......  Hidden Lane Landfill.  Sterling..........

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance
  and Disease Registry (HRS score need not be >= 28.50).
C = Sites on Construction Completion list.
S = State top priority (HRS score need not be >= 28.50).
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

* * * * *

 [FR Doc. E8-5557 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P