[Federal Register: October 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 203)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64976-64983]
[DOCID:fr21oc10-23]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0634, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0636, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-
0638, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0639, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0640, EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2010-0641, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0643, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0645, EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2010-0646, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0647; FRL-9216-1]
RIN 2050-AD75

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule No. 53

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

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 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 nine sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL. This rule also withdraws one site from
proposal to the General Superfund section of the NPL.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before December 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate Docket Number from the table below.

                                     Docket Identification Numbers by Site:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Site name                  City/County, State                       Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBF, Inc., Dump....................  Antioch, CA............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0647
Armstrong World Industries.........  Macon, GA..............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0640
Dwyer Property Ground Water Plume..  Elkton, MD.............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0639

Washington County Lead District--    Caledonia, MO..........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0646
 Furnace Creek.
Horton Iron and Metal..............  Wilmington, NC.........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0641
Mansfield Trail Dump...............  Byram Township, NJ.....  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0634
Milford Contaminated Aquifer.......  Milford, OH............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0643
Cabo Rojo Ground Water               Cabo Rojo, PR..........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0638
 Contamination.
Hormigas Ground Water Plume........  Caguas, PR.............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0636
West County Road 112 Ground Water..  Midland, TX............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0645
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket number,
by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket
Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA
Docket Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.;
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Express Mail: Send comments (no
facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW.; EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the appropriate Docket number
(see table above). EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public Docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system; that means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public Docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional Docket addresses and further
details on their contents, see section II, ``Public Review/Public
Comment,'' of the Supplementary Information portion of this preamble.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What is the NCP?
    C. What is the national priorities list (NPL)?
    D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
    E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
    G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
    H. May EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
    I. What is the construction completion list (CCL)?
    J. What is the sitewide ready for anticipated use measure?
II. 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
headquarters docket?
    D. What documents are available for public review at the
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?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
    B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. What is Executive Order 12866?
    2. Is this proposed rule subject to Executive Order 12866
review?
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this proposed rule?
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    2. How has EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this proposed rule?
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this proposed rule?
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this proposed rule?
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
    1. What is Executive Order 13211?
    2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this proposed rule?
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
apply to this proposed rule?
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

    1. What is Executive Order 12898?
    2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this proposed rule?

I. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any 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, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR part
300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and
Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets
guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of
releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may
present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or
welfare. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent
comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

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

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

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

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

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

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe

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

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

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

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

    In November 1995, EPA initiated a 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)?

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

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

II. Public Review/Public Comment

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

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

B. How do I access the documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters or the Regional Dockets after the publication of this
proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters Docket are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal
holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for hours.
    The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters
Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.;
EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/566-0276. (Please note
this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as
detailed at the beginning of this preamble.)
    The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:
    Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA,
Superfund Records and Information Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress
Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023; 617/918-1417.
    Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
    Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S.
EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103;
215/814-5364.
    Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S.
EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Mail code 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/
562-8862.
    Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA,
Records Center, Superfund Division SMR-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/353-5821.
    Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-
7436.
    Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th
Street, Mailcode SUPRERNB, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335.
    Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6484.
    Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD-9-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-
3219.
    Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue,
Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.
    You may also request copies from 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 oversized maps, oversized maps may be
viewed only in-person; since EPA dockets are not equipped to either
copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them out
electronically.
    You may use the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters Docket (see instructions included in the
ADDRESSES section above). Please note that there are differences
between the Headquarters Docket and the Regional Dockets and those
differences are outlined below.

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

    The Headquarters Docket for this proposed rule contains the
following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets;
Documentation Records describing the information used to compute the
score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory
requirements or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents
referenced in the Documentation Record.

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

    Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the
beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that
the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are
two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by
express mail or by postal mail.

F. What happens to my comments?

    EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that
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 EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (DC Cir. 1988)). EPA will
not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS or
other listing criteria. EPA will not address comments unless they
indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what
particular point in EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

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

    Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can only
guarantee that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close
of the formal comment period. 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,
will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public
Docket at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without
change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential
Business Information (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 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.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

    In today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add nine sites to the
General Superfund section of the NPL. All of the sites in this proposed
rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above.
The sites are presented in the tables below.

                                            General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  State                               Site name                          City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA......................................  Armstrong World Industries......  Macon.
MD......................................  Dwyer Property Ground Water       Elkton.
                                           Plume.
MO......................................  Washington County Lead District-- Caledonia.
                                           Furnace Creek.
NC......................................  Horton Iron and Metal...........  Wilmington.
NJ......................................  Mansfield Trail Dump............  Byram Township.
OH......................................  Milford Contaminated Aquifer....  Milford.
PR......................................  Cabo Rojo Ground Water            Cabo Rojo.
                                           Contamination.
PR......................................  Hormigas Ground Water Plume.....  Caguas.
TX......................................  West County Road 112 Ground       Midland.
                                           Water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL

    EPA is withdrawing the proposal to add the GBF, Inc. Dump site in
Antioch, California, to the NPL, because the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control has been, and will continue to be, the lead
agency overseeing the site cleanup pursuant to a California consent
order. Cleanup is progressing successfully and no further EPA actions
are necessary. The proposed rule can be found at 57 FR 4824 (February
7, 1992). Refer to the Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0647 for
supporting documentation regarding this action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
2. How has EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    This proposed rule listing sites on the NPL, if promulgated, would
not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This
proposed rule, if promulgated, also would establish no standards or
requirements that any small entity must meet, and would impose 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. Thus, this proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not impose any requirements on any small entities.
For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this proposed rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule where a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. Proposing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs.
Proposal does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial
action. Nor does proposal require any action by a private party or
determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site
responses result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to
take, not directly from the act of proposing a site to be placed on the
NPL. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202
and 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As is mentioned
above, site proposal does not impose any costs and would not require
any action of a small government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this proposed rule?
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it does not contain any
requirements applicable to States or other levels of government. Thus,
the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed
rule.
    EPA believes, however, that this proposed rule may be of
significant interest to State governments. In the spirit of Executive
Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications
between EPA and State and local governments, EPA therefore consulted
with State officials and/or representatives of State governments early
in the process of developing the rule to permit them to have meaningful
and timely input into its development. All sites included in this
proposed rule were referred to EPA by States for listing. For all sites
in this rule, EPA received letters of support either from the Governor
or a State official who was delegated the authority by the Governor to
speak on their behalf regarding NPL listing decisions.

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

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

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

1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this proposed rule?
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule
present a disproportionate risk to children.

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

1. What is Executive Order 13211?
    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' (66 FR
28355 (May 22, 2001)) requires Federal agencies to prepare a
``Statement of Energy Effects'' when undertaking certain regulatory
actions. A Statement of Energy Effects describes the adverse effects of
a ``significant energy action'' on energy supply, distribution and use,
reasonable alternatives to the action, and the expected effects of the
alternatives on energy supply, distribution and use.
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this proposed rule?
    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further,
we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse
energy impacts because proposing a site to the NPL does not require an
entity to conduct any action that would require energy use, let alone
that which would significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or
usage. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act apply to
this proposed rule?
    No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

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

1. What Is Executive Order 12898?
    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this rule?
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. As this rule does not impose any enforceable duty upon
State, tribal or local governments, this rule will neither increase nor
decrease environmental protection.

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.

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

    Dated: October 14, 2010.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2010-26461 Filed 10-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14556-14557]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05160]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0783]

Cheng Yi Liang: Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act)
permanently debarring Cheng Yi Liang, from providing services in any
capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product
application. We base this order on a finding that Mr. Liang was
convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the
development or approval, including the process for the development or
approval, of a drug product. Mr. Liang was given notice of the proposed
permanent debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the
timeframe prescribed by regulation. Mr. Liang failed to respond. Mr.
Liang's failure to respond constitutes a waiver of his right to a
hearing concerning this action.

DATES: This order is effective March 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for special termination of debarment to
the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenny Shade, Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD
20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(a)(2)(A))
requires debarment of an individual if FDA finds that the individual
has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for

conduct relating to the development or approval, including the process
for development or approval, of any drug product.
    On March 5, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland accepted Mr. Liang's plea of guilty and adjudged him guilty of
one count of making a false statement to a Federal Agency, a Federal
felony offense under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and securities fraud, a Federal
felony offense under 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78ff.
    FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony
conviction for securities fraud referenced herein for conduct relating
to the development or approval, including the process for development
or approval, of any drug product. The factual basis for this conviction
is as follows: Mr. Liang was a chemist for FDA, working in the Center
for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the Office of New Drug
Quality Assessment. As a part of his duties with FDA, Mr. Liang had
access to the FDA's Document Archiving, Reporting and Regulatory
Tracking Systems (DAARTS), which CDER used internally to manage, track,
receive and report on new drug applications as well as emerging
significant drug safety issues.
    Between in or about July 2006 and in or about March 2011, Mr. Liang
reviewed the DAARTS system to learn non-public information regarding
when an FDA announcement regarding an experimental drug was imminent
and to learn the substance of the announcement. Mr. Liang used this
non-public information relating to drug approvals to cause the
execution of trades on national securities exchanges, resulting in
total profits and losses avoided of $3,776,152 during that period of
time.
    As a result of his conviction, on November 6, 2012, FDA sent Mr.
Liang a notice by certified mail proposing to permanently debar him
from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an
approved or pending drug product application. The proposal was based on
a finding, under section 306(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act, that Mr. Liang
was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the
development or approval, including the process for development or
approval, of any drug product. The proposal also offered Mr. Liang an
opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days from the date
of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and advised him
that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of the
opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this
action. The proposal was received on November 9, 2012. Mr. Liang failed
to respond within the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has,
therefore, waived his opportunity for a hearing and has waived any
contentions concerning his debarment (21 CFR part 12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Regulatory Affairs, under section 306(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act, under
authority delegated to the Director (Staff Manual Guide 1410.21), finds
that Cheng Yi Liang has been convicted of a felony under Federal law
for conduct relating to the development or approval, including the
process for development or approval, of a drug product.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Liang is permanently
debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an
approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512,
or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section
351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see
DATES) (see sections 306(c)(1)(B), (c)(2)(A)(ii), and 201(dd) of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(B), (c)(2)(A)(ii), and 321(dd))). Any
person with an approved or pending drug product application who
knowingly employs or retains as a consultant or contractor, or
otherwise uses the services of Mr. Liang in any capacity during Mr.
Liang's debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section
307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Mr. Liang
provides services in any capacity to a person with an approved or
pending drug product application during his period of debarment, he
will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C
Act). In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new
drug applications submitted by or with the assistance of Mr. Liang
during his period of debarment (section 306(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act).
    Any application by Mr. Liang for special termination of debarment
under section 306(d)(4) of the FD&C Act should be identified with
Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0783 and sent to the Division of Dockets
Management (see ADDRESSES). All such submissions are to be filed in
four copies. The public availability of information in these
submissions is governed by 21 CFR 10.20(j).
    Publicly available submissions may be seen in the Division of
Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: February 8, 2013.
Melinda K. Plaisier,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Regulatory Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2013-05160 Filed 3-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 84006]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26405]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-813, OMB Control No. 3235-0765]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 498A

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

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``Paperwork Reduction Act'') (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for
extension of the previously approved collection of information
discussed below.
    Rule 498A under the Securities Act permits a person to satisfy its
prospectus delivery obligations under section 5(b)(2) of the Securities
Act for a contract by: (1) sending or giving to new investors key
information contained in a variable contract statutory prospectus in
the form of an initial summary prospectus; (2) sending or giving to
existing investors each year a brief description of certain changes to
the contract, and a subset of the information in the initial summary
prospectus, in the form of an updating summary prospectus; and (3)
providing the statutory prospectus and other materials online. Rule
498A considers a person to have met its prospectus delivery obligations
for any portfolio companies associated with a variable contract if the
portfolio company prospectuses are posted online. Under the rule, a
registrant (or the financial intermediary distributing the variable
contract) relying on the rule must send the variable contract statutory
prospectus (that statutory prospectus must be filed as part of
registration statement on Form N-3, N-4, or N-6, as applicable) and
other materials to an investor in paper or electronic format upon
request.
    Based on an analysis of fund filings, we estimate that 82% of
variable contracts that filed annual updates to their registration
statements use at least one summary prospectus under rule 498A. In the
aggregate, the Commission staff estimates the total annual hour burden
to comply with rule 498A to be 7,634 hours, at an internal time cost
equivalent of $2,337,471, and a total annual external cost burden of
$9,094,866.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is based on
communications with industry representatives, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study.
    Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following website: www.reginfo.gov. Find this
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
by January 2, 2024 to (i) [email protected] and
(ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, or by sending an email to: [email protected].

    Dated: November 27, 2023.
Christina Z. Milnor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-26405 Filed 11-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26974-26975]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09649]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-1699-000]

Johanna Energy Center, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Johanna Energy Center, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 20, 2020.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling

link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 30, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09649 Filed 5-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Heavy-Duty Hybrid Onboard Diagnostics

FROM:		Amy Kopin

TO:		The Docket

DATE:		July 25, 2011

	On June 16th, 2011 we held a conference call with the Hybrid
Manufacturers Regulatory Collaboration (HMRC) to discuss concerns raised
by members of the HMRC regarding heavy-duty onboard diagnostic (OBD)
requirements and timing.  Concerns were raised during the comment period
for the heavy-duty greenhouse gas notice of proposed rulemaking that
heavy-duty hybrid applications may not be able to meet the 2013
heavy-duty OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD Final
Rulemaking.,  Specifically, they have requested a delay of the
application of HD OBD requirements for hybrid applications until 2020.
Attendees from the EPA and HMRC are shown below.

Attendee	Affiliation

Cleophas Jackson	EPA – Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division

Anthony Neam	EPA – Assessment and Standards Division

Amy Kopin	EPA – Assessment and Standards Division

Barbara Chance	Allison Transmission

Kevin Rodgers	Allison Transmission

Ian McKenzie	Eaton Corporation

Tom Apalenek	BAE Systems

Derek Matthews	BAE Systems

Jim Lyons	Sierra Research

 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,”
republished December 29, 2010.  Available here:
http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/html/2010-32726.htm

 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New
Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule Regulations Requiring Onboard
Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway
Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic
Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty Vehicles Under 14,000
Pounds,” published February 24, 2009.  Available here:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-7
4-fr-8310.pdf