[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 172 (Thursday, September 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50515-50522]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19192]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1995-0002, EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0454, 0456, 0457, 0458, 0459,
0460, 0461, 0462, 0463, 0464, 0465, 0466 and 0467; FRL-8886-01-OLEM]

National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before November 8, 2021.
    As of September 9, 2021, the proposed rule published at 60 FR 8212
(February 13, 1995), is withdrawn.

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

                                      Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Site name                   City/county, state                      Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Westside Lead........................  Atlanta, GA............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0454
North 5th Street Groundwater           Goshen, IN.............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0456
 Contamination.
Lower Neponset River.................  Boston/Milton, MA......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0457
Bear Creek Sediments.................  Baltimore County, MD...  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0458
Michner Plating--Mechanic Street.....  Jackson, MI............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0459
Southeast Hennepin Area Groundwater    Minneapolis, MN........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0460
 and Vapor.
Meeker Avenue Plume..................  Brooklyn, NY...........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0461
Bradford Island......................  Cascade Locks, OR......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0462
Ochoa Fertilizer Co..................  Gu[aacute]nica, PR.....  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0463
Galey and Lord Plant.................  Society Hill, SC.......  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0464
National Fireworks...................  Cordova, TN............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0465
Unity Auto Mart......................  Unity, WI..............  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0466
Paden City Groundwater...............  Paden City, WV.........  EPA-HQ-OLEM-2021-0467
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You may send comments, identified by the appropriate docket number,
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Agency Website: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/current-npl-updates-new-proposed-npl-sites-and-new-npl-sites; scroll down to the
site for which you would like to submit comments and click the
``Comment Now'' link.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Superfund Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of
operations are 8:30

a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the appropriate
Docket ID No. for site(s) for which you are submitting comments.
Comments received may be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending comments and additional information on
the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Review/Public Comment''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Out
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the
EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public, with
limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our
Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer service
via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public to submit
comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there may be a
delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and couriers may be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA
Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Public Review/Public Comment

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

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

B. How do I access the documents?

    The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading
Room for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to
provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We
encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ as there may be a delay in processing mail and
faxes. Hand deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled
appointment only. For further information and updates on EPA Docket
Center services, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.
    The following is the contact information for the EPA dockets: Mail
comments to the EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this
preamble.)
    The contact information for the regional dockets is as follows:
     Holly Inglis, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA,
Superfund Records and Information Center, 5 Post Office Square, Suite
100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; 617/918-1413.
     James Desir, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4342.
     Lorie Baker (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV),
U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3HS12, Philadelphia, PA
19103; 215/814-3355.
     Sandra Bramble, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN),
U.S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Mailcode 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/
562-8926.
     Todd Quesada, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA
Superfund Division Librarian/SFD Records Manager SRC-7J, Metcalfe
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/
886-4465.
     Michelle Delgado-Brown, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX),
U.S. EPA, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Mailcode SED, Dallas, TX 75270;
214/665-3154.
     Kumud Pyakuryal, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA,
11201 Renner Blvd., Mailcode SUPRSTAR, Lenexa, KS 66219; 913/551-7956.
     Victor Ketellapper, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY),
U.S. EPA, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129;
303/312-6578.
     Eugenia Chow, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S.
EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD 6-1, San Francisco, CA 94105;
415/972-3160.
     Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th
Avenue, Suite 155, Mailcode 12-D12-1, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/890-0591.
    You may also request copies from the EPA Headquarters or the
regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written
request under the

Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for
obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note that due to the
difficulty of reproducing them, oversized maps may be viewed only in-
person; since the EPA dockets are not equipped to both copy and mail
out such maps or scan them and send them out electronically.
    You may use the docket at https://www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters docket. Please note that there are
differences between the Headquarters docket and the regional dockets
and those differences are outlined in this preamble below.

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

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

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

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

E. How do I submit my comments?

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

F. What happens to my comments?

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

G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?

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

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

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

I. May I view public comments submitted by others?

    During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the regional
dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
    All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper
form, will be made available for public viewing in the electronic
public docket at https://www.regulations.gov as the EPA receives them
and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Once in the public dockets system, select ``search,'' then key in the
appropriate docket ID number.

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

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

II. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

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

B. What is the NCP?

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

of taking removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and
include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or
otherwise address releases and threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

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

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

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS,
which the EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300).
The HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential
of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to
pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990
(55 FR 51532), the EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in
response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. On January 9, 2017
(82 FR 2760), a subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS to
enable the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous substances or
pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures
through subsurface intrusion when evaluating sites for the NPL. The
current HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil
exposure and subsurface intrusion, and air. As a matter of agency
policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible
for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each state may
designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL,
without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires that, to the
extent practicable, the NPL include one facility designated by each
state as the greatest danger to public health, welfare or the
environment among known facilities in the state. This mechanism for
listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2). (3) The third
mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3),
allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score, if all of the
following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
     The EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health.
     The EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to
use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond
to the release.
    The EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8,
1983 (48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

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

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. Plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination; and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name

``Jones Co. Plant site,'' does not imply that the Jones Company is
responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.
    The EPA regulations provide that the remedial investigation
(``RI'') ``is a process undertaken . . . to determine the nature and
extent of the problem presented by the release'' as more information is
developed on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the feasibility Study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5).
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted previously, NPL listing does not assign liability
to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting information to the agency at any
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

    In this proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to add 13 sites to the
NPL, 12 to the General Superfund section, and one to the Federal
Facilities section. All of the sites in this rule are being proposed
for NPL addition based on an HRS score of 28.50 or above.
    The sites are presented in the tables below.

                                            General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                                Site name                         City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA.......................................  Westside Lead...................  Atlanta.
IN.......................................  North 5th Street Groundwater      Goshen.
                                            Contamination.
MA.......................................  Lower Neponset River............  Boston/Milton.

MD.......................................  Bear Creek Sediments............  Baltimore County.
MI.......................................  Michner Plating--Mechanic Street  Jackson.
MN.......................................  Southeast Hennepin Area           Minneapolis.
                                            Groundwater and Vapor.
NY.......................................  Meeker Avenue Plume.............  Brooklyn.
PR.......................................  Ochoa Fertilizer Co.............  Gu[aacute]nica.
SC.......................................  Galey and Lord Plant............  Society Hill.
TN.......................................  National Fireworks..............  Cordova.
WI.......................................  Unity Auto Mart.................  Unity.
WV.......................................  Paden City Groundwater..........  Paden City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                           Federal Facilities Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                                Site name                         City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR.......................................  Bradford Island.................  Cascade Locks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Withdrawal of Previous Proposal for NPL Addition

    The EPA is withdrawing its previous proposal to add the Highway 71/
72 Refinery site in Bossier City, Louisiana, to the NPL because cleanup
is nearing completion via Federal, State, and potentially responsible
party actions. CanadianOxy Offshore Production Co. (COPCO), which is
represented by Glenn Springs Holding Inc. (GSHI), has been working with
EPA and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality to clean up
the contamination. GSHI completed the remedial action for lead in soil
and light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL) recovery as operational and
functional in 2011. GSHI completed the remedial actions for benzene and
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in soil in 2018. EPA has
determined that the cleanup for lead, benzene and PAHs in soil meets
the remedial action objectives, remediation goals, and performance
standards and that the dual-phase extraction system to remove LNAPL and
contaminated groundwater is operational and functional. Operation and
maintenance activities and monitoring are ongoing. The rule proposing
to add this site to the NPL can be found at 60 FR 8212 (February 13,
1995). Refer to the Docket ID number EPA-HQ-SFUND-1995-0002 for
supporting documentation regarding this action. Further supporting
information can be found on the Superfund web page for this site at
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.scs&id=0600641&doc=Y&colid=40643®ion=06&type=SC.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those

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

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. As discussed in
Section I.C. of the preamble to this action, the NPL is a list of
national priorities. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the EPA in
determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the
nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated
with a release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants. The
NPL is of only limited significance as it does not assign liability to
any party. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean that any
remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

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

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 300 as follows:

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

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
13626, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR
54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR,
1987 Comp., p. 193.

0
2. Amend appendix B of part 300 by:
0
a. In Table 1, adding entries for ``GA,'' ``Westside Lead'', ``IN,''
``North 5th Street Groundwater Contamination'', ``MA,'' ``Lower
Neponset River'', ``MD,'' ``Bear Creek Sediments'', ``MI,'' ``Michner
Plating--Mechanic Street'', ``MN,'' ``Southeast Hennepin Area
Groundwater and Vapor'', ``NY,'' ``Meeker Avenue Plume'', ``PR,''
``Ochoa Fertilizer Co'', ``SC,'' ``Galey and Lord Plant'', ``TN,''
``National Fireworks'', ``WI,'' ``Unity Auto Mart'', and ``WV,''
``Paden City Groundwater'' in alphabetical order by state; and
0
b. In Table 2, adding the entry for ``OR,'' ``Bradford Island'' in
alphabetical order by state.
    The additions read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

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

                                                  * * * * * * *
GA...........................  Westside Lead...............  Atlanta................

                                                  * * * * * * *
IN...........................  North 5th Street Groundwater  Goshen.................
                                Contamination.

                                                  * * * * * * *
MA...........................  Lower Neponset River........  Boston/Milton..........

                                                  * * * * * * *
MD...........................  Bear Creek Sediments........  Baltimore County.......

                                                  * * * * * * *
MI...........................  Michner Plating--Mechanic     Jackson................
                                Street.

                                                  * * * * * * *
MN...........................  Southeast Hennepin Area       Minneapolis............
                                Groundwater and Vapor.

                                                  * * * * * * *
NY...........................  Meeker Avenue Plume.........  Brooklyn...............

                                                  * * * * * * *
PR...........................  Ochoa Fertilizer Co.........  Gu[aacute]nica.........

                                                  * * * * * * *
SC...........................  Galey and Lord Plant........  Society Hill...........

                                                  * * * * * * *
TN...........................  National Fireworks..........  Cordova................

                                                  * * * * * * *
WI...........................  Unity Auto Mart.............  Unity..................

                                                  * * * * * * *
WV...........................  Paden City Groundwater......  Paden City.............

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

* * * * *

                                       Table 2--Federal Facilities Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            State                        Site name                 City/county                  Notes a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
OR...........................  Bradford Island.............  Cascade Locks..........

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-19192 Filed 9-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31801]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14656]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-475, OMB Control No. 3235-0536]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Regulation FD

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Regulation FD (17 CFR 243.100 et seq.)--Other Disclosure Materials
requires public disclosure of material information from issuers of
publicly traded securities so that investors have current information
upon which to base investment decisions. The purpose of the regulation
is to require: (1) An issuer that intentionally discloses material
information, to do so through public disclosure, not selective
disclosure; and (2) to make prompt public disclosure of material
information that was unintentionally selectively disclosed. We estimate
that approximately 13,000 issuers make Regulation FD disclosures
approximately five times a year for a total of 58,000 submissions
annually, not including an estimated 7,000 issuers who file Form 8-K to
comply with Regulation FD. We estimate that it takes 5 hours per
response (58,000 responses x 5 hours) for a total burden of 290,000
hours annually. In addition, we estimate that 25% of the 5 hours per
response (1.25 hours) is prepared by the filer for an annual reporting
burden of 72,500 hours (1.25 hours per response x 58,000 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information has
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    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 control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace
Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: July 3, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14656 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 53366]
[DOCID:fr31au10-125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62763; File Nos. SR-BATS-2010-018; SR-BX-2010-044; SR-
CBOE-2010-065; SR-CHX-2010-14; SR-EDGA-2010-05; SR-EDGX-2010-05; SR-
FINRA-2010-033; SR-ISE-2010-66; SR-NYSE-2010-49; SR-NYSEAmex-2010-63;
SR-NYSEArca-2010-61; SR-NASDAQ-2010-079; SR-NSX-2010-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; EDGA
Exchange, Inc.; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; International Securities Exchange LLC; NASDAQ OMX BX,
Inc.; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; New
York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Amex LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Changes Relating to Trading Pauses Due to Extraordinary Market
Volatility

August 24, 2010.
    On June 30, 2010, each of BATS Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA
Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc., International Securities Exchange, LLC, The NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., National Stock Exchange, Inc.,
New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Amex LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ proposed rule changes to
amend certain of their respective rules to add securities to the
single-stock circuit breaker pilot program.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ The single-stock circuit breaker pilot program was initially
approved on June 10, 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
62251 (June 10, 2010), 75 FR 34183 (June 16, 2010); 62252 (June 10,
2010), 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within thirty-five
days of the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule
change, or within such longer period as the Commission may designate up
to ninety days of such date if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, the Commission
shall either approve the proposed rule change or institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The Commission extended this time period from August 11, 2010 to August
25, 2010.\6\ The Commission is again extending this time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62688A (August 11,
2010), 75 FR 51138 (August 18, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule changes so that it has
sufficient time to consider these proposed rule changes, which relate
to the addition of securities to the single-stock circuit breaker pilot
program, and issues raised in the comment letters that have been
submitted in connection with these filings.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ designates September 10, 2010, as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or institute proceedings to determine
whether to disapprove the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21630 Filed 8-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: July 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 140)]
[Notices]
[Page 41484-41485]
[DOCID:fr21jy06-80]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings; Notice

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and
Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of
July 24, 2006:

    An open meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 10
a.m. in the Auditorium, Room LL-002, and a Closed

Meeting will be held on Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 2 p.m.

    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(5), (6), (7), (9)(B), (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(5), (6), (7), (9)(ii), and (10) permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Nazareth, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
July 26, 2006 will be:

    The Commission will consider whether to adopt amendments to the
disclosure requirements for executive and director compensation,
related party transactions, director independence and other
corporate governance matters, and security ownership of officers and
directors. The Commission will also consider whether to adopt final
rules requiring that disclosure under the amended items generally be
provided in plain English.

    The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday,
July 27, 2006 will be: Formal orders of investigation; Institution and
settlement of injunctive actions; Institution and settlement of
administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; Collection
matters; Resolution of litigation claims; Litigation matters; and An
adjudicatory matter.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 18, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-6408 Filed 7-19-06; 10:55 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9379-9380]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03585]

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

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 2014 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0858; Special Conditions No. 25-518-SC]

Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc., Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-
500-1A11 Series Airplanes; Fuselage Post-Crash Fire Survivability

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc.
Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. These airplanes
will have novel or unusual design features when compared to the state
of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport
category airplanes. These features are associated with an aluminum-
lithium fuselage construction that may provide different levels of
protection from post-crash fire threats than similar aircraft
constructed from traditional aluminum structure. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective Date: March 21, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Sinclair, FAA, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Inc. applied for a type
certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series
airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as ``C-series''). The C-
series airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with an aluminum alloy
fuselage sized for 5-abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated
as 110 for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11.
Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and
144,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A11.
    The fuselage of the Bombardier C-series airplanes will be
fabricated using aluminum-lithium construction. Structures fabricated
from aluminum-lithium may provide different levels of protection from
post-crash fuel-fed fire threats than similar aircraft with traditional
aluminum structure.
    There are no existing regulations that adequately ensure that
aluminum-lithium structure offers passengers the same protection from a
post-crash fire condition as would a conventional aluminum structure.
These special conditions are necessary to ensure that the Bombardier C-
series airplanes provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided
by Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, Bombardier Inc. must show that the C-series airplanes meet
the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendment 25-1
through 25-129 thereto.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR Part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the C-series airplanes because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the C-series airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and
exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR Part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR Part 36; and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Bombardier C-series airplanes will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design features: The fuselage will be fabricated using
aluminum-lithium materials instead of conventional aluminum.
    The performance of airplanes consisting of a conventional aluminum
fuselage is understood based on service history and extensive
intermediate and large-scale fire testing. The new aluminum-lithium
materials must provide the same levels of protection against post-crash
fuel-fed fire threats.

Discussion

    The certification basis for the Bombardier C-series airplanes
includes meeting the burn through requirements defined in Sec.
25.856(b). The Bombardier C-series airplanes are introducing a new
material from what has traditionally been shown to be survivable from a
toxic standpoint. Toxicity levels from post-crash fire threats are
typically more severe than threats generated from an in-flight fire
with regards to the quantity level of toxins produced by off-gases from
burning materials. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the
material being used does not introduce a new hazard that would reduce
the survivability of the passengers during a post-crash situation, or
produce levels of toxic fumes that would be lethal or incapacitating,
thus preventing evacuation of the aircraft in a crash scenario.
    Bombardier Inc. will have to demonstrate that aluminum-lithium
material does not produce levels of toxic fumes that will reduce the
survivability of the passengers or their ability to evacuate when
compared to typically constructed aluminum airplanes.
    A way of showing acceptable capability is to conduct a laboratory-
scale test to assess the survivability

characteristics of this non-traditional fuselage material. If
negligible amounts of combustion products are produced in this test,
the material can be considered acceptable with respect to post crash
survivability. A test method developed by the FAA's William J. Hughes
Technical Center should be used (Ref. DOT/FAA/AR-TN07/15 dated August
2008).
    Related regulations, including Sec. Sec.  25.853 and 25.856(a),
remain valid for this airplane, but they do not reflect the potential
threat generated from toxic levels of gases produced from aluminum-
lithium materials.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-13-08-SC for the
Bombardier C-series airplanes was published in the Federal Register on
October 31, 2013 (78 FR 65233). No comments were received, and the
special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. Should Bombardier
Inc. apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to
include another model on the same type certificate incorporating the
same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on two model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Bombardier Inc. Models BD-500-1A10 and
BD-500-1A11 (C-series) airplanes.
    Fuselage Post-Crash Fire Survivability. The Bombardier C-series
airplanes must show that any toxic levels of gases produced from the
aluminum-lithium material are in no way an additional threat to the
passengers and their ability to evacuate when compared to a typically
constructed aluminum airplane exposed to a post-crash fuel-fed fire.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 22, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-03585 Filed 2-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 108 (Thursday, June 4, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34357-34359]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10059]

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

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 108 / Thursday, June 4, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0057; FRL-10009-47-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan Requirements for the 2015 Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Vermont
that addresses the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act)--including the interstate transport provisions--for the
2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural
components of each state's air-quality management program, including
provisions prohibiting emissions that will have certain adverse air-
quality effects in other states, are adequate to meet the state's
responsibilities under the CAA. EPA is also approving the State of
Vermont Executive Order (E.O.) 19-17, Executive Code of Ethics, which
Vermont submitted with its infrastructure submission for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS to be added to the SIP. Because E.O. 19-17 supersedes and
replaces E.O. 09-11, EPA is also removing E.O. 09-11 from the Vermont
SIP. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0057. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1684, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Final Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On April 1, 2020 (85 FR 18160), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Vermont.
    The NPRM proposed approval of a Vermont SIP revision that addresses
the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)--
including the interstate transport provisions--for the 2015 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NPRM also proposed
approval of State of Vermont Executive Order (E.O.) 19-17, Executive
Code of Ethics, which the State submitted with its infrastructure
submission. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Vermont on
November 19, 2019. The rationale for EPA's proposed action is given in
the NPRM and will not be restated here. EPA received no public comments
on the NPRM.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving Vermont's November 19, 2019, infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS)--including the ``Good Neighbor''
or ``transport'' provisions--as a revision to the Vermont SIP. In
addition, EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Vermont SIP, the
following executive order:
    State of Vermont Executive Order No. 19-17, Executive Code of
Ethics, effective December 4, 2017.
    EPA is also removing State of Vermont Executive Order No. 09-11,
Executive Code of Ethics, from the Vermont SIP because this has been
superseded and replaced by Executive Order No. 19-17.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Vermont executive order described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52
set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and
at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely

approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 3, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 6, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart UU--Vermont

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.2370:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (c) by removing the entry ``Vermont
Executive Order 09-11'' and adding the entry ``Vermont Executive Order
19-17'' at the end of the Statutes and Executive Orders section of the
table; and
0
b. In the table in paragraph (e) by adding the entry ``Submittal to
meet Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS'' at the end of the table.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2370   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Vermont Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
         State citation             Title/subject    effective date   EPA approval date        Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Statutes and Executive Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Vermont Executive Order 19-17..  Executive Code of        12/4/2017  6/4/2020 [Insert    Prohibits all Vermont
                                  Ethics.                             Federal Register    executive branch
                                                                      citation].          appointees (including
                                                                                the ANR Secretary)
                                                                                from taking ``any
                                                                                action in any matter
                                                                                in which he or she has
                                                                                either a Conflict of
                                                                                Interest or the
                                                                                appearance of a
                                                                                Conflict of Interest,
                                                                                until the Conflict is
                                                                                resolved.'' Submitted
                                                                                and approved as part
                                                                                of 2015 Ozone
                                                                                infrastructure SIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                             Vermont Non-Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable           State
   Name of non-regulatory SIP       geographic or    submittal date/  EPA approved date        Explanations
           provision             nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Submittal to meet Section        Statewide.........      11/19/2019  6/4/2020 [Insert    This submittal is
 110(a)(2) Infrastructure                                             Federal Register    approved with respect
 Requirements for the 2015                                            citation].          to the following CAA
 Ozone NAAQS.                                                                             elements or portions
                                                                                thereof: 110(a)(2)
                                                                                (A), (B), (C), (D),
                                                                                (E)(1), E(2), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J1), (J2),
                                                                                (J3), (K), (L), and
                                                                                (M). This approval
                                                                                includes the Transport
                                                                                SIP for the 2015 Ozone
                                                                                NAAQS, which shows
                                                                                that Vermont does not
                                                                                significantly
                                                                                contribute to ozone
                                                                                nonattainment or
                                                                                maintenance in any
                                                                                other state.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-10059 Filed 6-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 47)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12634-12635]
[DOCID:fr10mr08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 522

Implantation or Injectable Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; Change
of Sponsor; Ferric Oxide Injection; Gleptoferron Injection; Iron
Dextran Complex Injection; Iron Hydrogenated Dextran Injection

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect a change of sponsor for two new animal drug
applications (NADAs) for injectable iron supplements used in baby pigs
from Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., to Animal Health
Pharmaceuticals, LLC. In addition, FDA is taking this opportunity to
consolidate injectable iron supplements in a single section of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR). This is being done to simplify and
clarify the regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective March 10, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Newkirk, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-100), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., 2621
North Belt Highway, St. Joseph, MO 64506-2002, has informed FDA that it
has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, NADA 106-
772 for Iron-GARD Injection 100 milligrams/milliliter (mg/mL) and NADA
134-708 for Iron-GARD Injection 200 mg/mL to Animal Health
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 1805 Oak Ridge Circle, suite 101, St. Joseph, MO
64506. Accordingly, the regulations are amended in 21 CFR 522.1182 to
reflect these changes of sponsorship.
    In addition, FDA is taking this opportunity to consolidate such
injectable iron supplements in a single section of the CFR. This is
being done to simplify and clarify the regulations.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 522

    Animal drugs.

0
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 522 is
amended as follows:

PART 522--IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

Sec.  522.940  [Removed]

0
2. Remove Sec.  522.940.

Sec.  522.1055  [Removed]

0
3. Remove Sec.  522.1055.

0
4. Revise Sec.  522.1182 to read as follows:

Sec.  522.1182  Iron injection.

    (a) Specifications. See Sec.  510.440 of this chapter. Each
milliliter (mL) of solution contains the equivalent of:
    (1) 100 milligrams (mg) of elemental iron derived from:
    (i) Ferric hydroxide;
    (ii) Ferric oxide; or
    (iii) Elemental iron.
    (2) 200 mg of elemental iron derived from ferric hydroxide.
    (b) Sponsors and conditions of use. It is used in baby pigs by
sponsors in Sec.  510.600(c) of this chapter as follows:
    (1) Nos. 059130 and 068718 for use of product described in
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section as follows:
    (i) For prevention of iron deficiency anemia, inject 100 mg (1 mL)
by intramuscular injection at 2 to 4 days of age.
    (ii) For treatment of iron deficiency anemia, inject 100 mg (1 mL)
by intramuscular injection. Dosage may be repeated in approximately 10
days.
    (2) No. 000856 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(1)(i)
of this section as follows:
    (i) For the prevention of anemia due to iron deficiency, administer
an initial intramuscular injection of 100 mg at 2 to 4 days of age.
Dosage may be repeated in 14 to 21 days.
    (ii) For the treatment of anemia due to iron deficiency, administer
an intramuscular injection of 200 mg.
    (3) Nos. 000061 and 062408 for use of product described in
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section as follows:
    (i) For the prevention of iron deficiency anemia, administer
intramuscularly an amount of drug containing 100 to 150 mg of elemental
iron to animals from 1 to 3 days of age.
    (ii) For the treatment of iron deficiency anemia, administer
intramuscularly an amount of drug containing 100 to 200 mg of elemental
iron per animal. Dosage may be repeated in 10 days to 2 weeks.
    (4) Nos. 051311 and 053501 for use of product described in
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section as follows:
    (i) For prevention of iron deficiency anemia, administer 1 mL by
intramuscular injection at 2 to 5 days of age. Dosage may be repeated
at 2 weeks of age.
    (ii) For treatment of iron deficiency anemia, administer 1 to 2 mL
by intramuscular injection at 5 to 28 days of age.
    (5) No. 053501 for use of product described in paragraph
(a)(1)(iii) of this section as follows:
    (i) For prevention of anemia due to iron deficiency, administer 100
mg by intramuscular or subcutaneous injection at 2 to 4 days of age.
    (ii) For treatment of anemia due to iron deficiency, administer 100
mg by intramuscular or subcutaneous injection up to 4 weeks of age.
    (6) Nos. 058005 and 059130 for use of product described in
paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section as follows:
    (i) For prevention of anemia due to iron deficiency, administer 100
mg by intramuscular injection at 2 to 4 days of age.
    (ii) For treatment of anemia due to iron deficiency, administer 100
mg by intramuscular injection. Treatment may be repeated in 10 days.
    (7) Nos. 059130 and 068718 for use of product described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section as follows:
    (i) For prevention of baby pig anemia due to iron deficiency,
intramuscularly inject 200 mg of elemental iron (1 mL) at 1 to 3 days
of age.
    (ii) For treatment of baby pig anemia due to iron deficiency,
intramuscularly inject 200 mg of elemental iron at the first sign of
anemia.
    (8) No. 062408 for use of product described in paragraph (a)(2) of
this section as follows:
    (i) For prevention of iron deficiency anemia, administer 200 mg
intramuscularly on or before 3 days of age.
    (ii) For treatment of iron deficiency anemia, administer 200 mg
intramuscularly.

Sec.  522.1183  [Removed]

0
5. Remove Sec.  522.1183.

    Dated: February 27, 2008.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. E8-4603 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: April 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 23455]
[DOCID:fr30ap08-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-58-000]

Pepco Energy Services, Inc., Complainant, v. PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C., Respondent; Notice of Complaint

April 23, 2008.
    Take notice that on April 22, 2008, Pepco Energy Services, Inc.
(PES) filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
(PJM) pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act, and Rule 206 of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, alleging that provisions of PJM's Open
Access Transmission Tariff as related to the rules governing the Peak-
Hour-Period Availability Charge for infrequently-run generation
resources under PJM's Reliability Pricing Model are unjust,
unreasonable and unduly discriminatory.
    PES certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the
contacts for PJM as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate
Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 13, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-9434 Filed 4-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 63277]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-D-1137]

Investigational COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma; Guidance for
Industry; Withdrawal of Guidance; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
that published in the Federal Register of September 21, 2020. The
document announced the withdrawal of a final guidance for industry
entitled ``Investigational COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma,'' which was
issued in April 2020 and updated in May 2020. FDA withdrew the guidance
because the Agency issued a new guidance for industry of the same
title. The document was published with the incorrect docket number for
the guidance for industry that was withdrawn. This document corrects
that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shruti Modi, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of September 18, 2020 (85 FR 593120),
appearing on page 59320 in FR Doc. 2020-20801, the following correction
is made:
    On page 59320, in the third column, the Docket No. ``FDA-2020-D-
1825'' is corrected to read ``FDA-2020-D-1137.''

    Dated: October 1, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-22142 Filed 10-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42098]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-4642]

B. Braun Medical, Inc.; Withdrawal of Approval of Three New Drug
Applications and One Abbreviated New Drug Application; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a
document entitled ``B. Braun Medical, Inc.; Withdrawal of Approval of
Three New Drug Applications and One Abbreviated New Drug Application''
that appeared in the Federal Register of August 3, 2017 (82 FR 36150).
The document was published with the incorrect docket number. This
document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Granger, Office of Policy, Food
and Drug Administration, Bldg. 32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of Thursday, August
3, 2017, in FR Doc. 2017-16377, on page 36150, the following correction
is made:
    1. On page 36150, in the second column, in the header of the
document, ``Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0002'' is corrected to read ``Docket
No. FDA-2017-N-4642''.

    Dated: August 28, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-18813 Filed 9-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P