[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 145 (Friday, July 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45772-45773]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16300]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0234; FRL-10101-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries
(EPA ICR Number 1692.13, OMB Control Number 2060-0340), to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the
ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2021. Public comments
were previously requested via the Federal Register on May 12, 2020
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency
may neither conduct nor sponsor and a person is not required to respond
to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 29,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2011-0234, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities at petroleum
refineries are required to comply with reporting and record keeping
requirements for the

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as well as the specific
requirements at 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC. This includes submitting
initial notifications, performance tests and periodic reports and
results, and maintaining records. These reports are used by EPA to
determine compliance with these standards.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Petroleum refineries that are major
sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart CC).
    Estimated number of respondents: 142 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly, semiannually, and
annually.
    Total estimated burden: 614,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $98,000,000 (per year), which includes
$32,600,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation &
maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates:
    This ICR incorporates the burden from both ICR 1692.10 and ICR
1692.12, which detail the additional burden to petroleum refineries
from the December 1, 2015 (80 FR 75178) and November 18, 2018 (83 FR
60696) amendments to the rule, respectively. The 2015 rule amendments
added new recordkeeping and reporting requirements for delayed coking
unit vents, flares used as control devices, and fenceline monitoring,
as well as additional requirements for storage vessels. The 2018 rule
amendments revised the recordkeeping requirements for maintenance vents
associated with equipment containing less than 72 lbs of VOC. This ICR
accounts for the full burden of the current rule and reflects an
increase in burden hours and responses.
    This ICR, by in large, reflects the on-going burden and costs for
existing facilities, with the exception of a small number of facilities
with reconstructed units that must meet initial compliance
requirements. The burden in this ICR accounts for implementation of the
2015 amendments, which have been in effect for more than three years.
The previous ICR reflected those burdens and costs associated with the
initial activities for subject facilities, such as purchasing
monitoring equipment and establishing recordkeeping systems. As such,
the capital/startup costs as calculated in section 6(b)(iii) in this
ICR have decreased compared with the costs in the previous ICRs (ICR
1692.10 and ICR 1692.12). In the next three years, the ongoing O&M
costs for affected existing facilities at refineries from the 2015
amendments have been adjusted to include the O&M costs for pressure
relief valves to address API/APEM comments. In addition, this ICR also
adjusts the estimated number of Group 1 storage vessels subject to
requirements from 9 to 12 for each facility, per consideration of
comments by API/APFM in a letter dated February 14, 2019 and confirmed
through Agency analysis.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-16300 Filed 7-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 18, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-18778

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Joint Applicants:  COMPANIA MEXICANA de AVIACION, S.A. de C.V.
             Date Filed: July 30, 2004

Relief requested:  Statement of Authorization under 14 CFR Part 212 to
permit Mexicana to carry Iberia’s designator code on Mexicana’s
scheduled flights between Cancun, Mexico, and Miami, Florida, for the
purpose of carrying Iberia’s Spain-Cancun traffic, for a duration of
at least two years.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority.

Applicant representative:  Charles F. Donley II,<PHONE_NUMBER>
DOT analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
                                              Action date:  August 18,
2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  Effective August 18, 2004,
through August 18, 2006.

Basis for approval:  Reciprocity with Mexico.

Remarks/Conditions:  This code-share operation is subject to the
following conditions – a) Mexicana and/or Iberia must notify the
Department immediately if the code-share agreement under which this
code-share service is operated is no longer in effect, or if the
carriers decide to cease operating all or any portion of the code-share
service under the agreement.  We expect this notification to be received
within ten days of such non-effectiveness or of such decision.  This
notice should be filed in Docket OST-2004-18778.  b) The code-sharing
operation conducted under this authority must comply with 14 CFR Part
257 and with any amendments to the Department’s regulations concerning
code-share arrangements that may be adopted.  Notwithstanding any
provisions in the contract between the subject air carriers, our
approval here is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the
subject foreign air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier
holding out the service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere;
that the carrier selling such transportation (that is, the carrier shown
on the ticket) accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share
journey for all obligations established in its contract of carriage with
the passenger; and that the passenger liability of the operating carrier
be unaffected.  c) The authority granted here is specifically
conditioned so that the subject foreign air carriers shall not give any
force or effect to any contractual provisions between themselves that
are contrary to these conditions.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director, Office of International
Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8880-8883]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3548]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1029]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; General Licensing Provisions; Section 351(k)
Biosimilar Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
concerning each proposed collection of information, and to allow 60
days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits
comments on the information collection for the requirements for an
application for a proposed biosimilar product and an application for a
supplement for a proposed interchangeable product.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by April 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane., Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juanmanuel Vilela, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,

PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

General Licensing Provisions; Section 351(K) Biosimilar Applications

    On March 23, 2010, the President signed into law the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act) (Pub. L. 111-
148). The Affordable Care Act contains a subtitle called the Biologics
Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCI Act) which amends
the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) and establishes an abbreviated
licensure pathway for biological products shown to be biosimilar to, or
interchangeable with, an FDA-licensed biological reference product.
(See sections 7001 through 7003 of the Affordable Care Act.)
    Section 351(k) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 262(k)), added by the BPCI
Act, sets forth the requirements for an application for a proposed
biosimilar product and an application for a supplement for a proposed
interchangeable product. Section 351(k) defines biosimilarity to mean
``that the biological product is highly similar to the reference
product notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive
components'' and that ``there are no clinically meaningful differences
between the biological product and the reference product in terms of
the safety, purity, and potency of the product''. (See section
351(i)(2) of the PHS Act.) A 351(k) application must contain, among
other things, information demonstrating that the biological product is
biosimilar to a reference product based upon data derived from
analytical studies, animal studies, and clinical studies, unless FDA
determines, in its discretion, that certain studies are unnecessary in
a 351(k) application. (See section 351(k)(2).) To demonstrate
interchangeability, an applicant must provide sufficient information to
demonstrate biosimilarity, and that the biosimilar biological product
can be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference
product in any given patient and, if the biosimilar biological product
is administered more than once to an individual, the risk in terms of
safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between the
use of the biosimilar biological product and the reference product is
not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such
alternation or switch. (See section 351(k)(4) of the PHS Act.)
Interchangeable products may be substituted for the reference product
without the intervention of the prescribing healthcare provider. (See
section 351(i)(3) of the PHS Act.) This Federal Register information
collection document begins the process of requesting public comment and
obtaining OMB approval for the information collection regarding the
burden on the submission of a 351(k) application not otherwise covered
by existing OMB approvals.
    In estimating the information collection burden for 351(k)
applications, FDA has reviewed the collection of information regarding
the general licensing provisions for biologics license applications
(BLAs) under section 351(a) of the PHS Act to OMB (approved under OMB
control number 0910-0338). For the information collection burden for
351(a) applications, FDA described Sec.  601.2(a) (21 CFR 601.2(a)) as
requiring a manufacturer of a biological product to submit an
application on forms prescribed for such purpose with accompanying data
and information including certain labeling information to FDA for
approval to market a product in interstate commerce. FDA also added in
the burden estimate the container and package labeling requirements
provided under Sec. Sec.  610.60 through 610.65 (21 CFR 610.60 through
610.65). The estimated hours per response for Sec.  601.2, and
Sec. Sec.  610.60 through 610.65, were 860 hours.
    In addition, in submitting a 351(a) application, an applicant
completes the Form FDA 356h ``Application to Market a New Drug,
Biologic, or an Antibiotic Drug for Human Use.'' The application form
serves primarily as a checklist for firms to gather and submit certain
information to FDA. The checklist helps to ensure that the application
is complete and contains all the necessary information, so that delays
due to lack of information may be eliminated. The form provides key
information to FDA for efficient handling and distribution to the
appropriate staff for review. The estimated burden hours for biological
product submissions using FDA Form 356h are included under the
applicable requirements approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.
    FDA intends for an applicant to submit a 351(k) application
following Form FDA 356h, modifying the information submitted to support
the information required under section 351(k) of the BPCI Act. To
submit an application seeking licensure of a proposed biosimilar
product under section 351(k)(2)(A)(i) and (k)(2)(A)(iii), FDA believes
that the estimated burden hours would be approximately the same as
noted under OMB control number 0910-0338 for a 351(a) application--860
hours. The burden estimates for seeking licensure of a proposed
biosimilar product that meets the standards for interchangeability
under section 351(k)(2)(B) and (k)(4) would also be 860 hours. Until we
gain more experience with biosimilar applications, FDA believes this
estimate is appropriate for 351(k) applications because to determine
biosimilarity or interchangeability of a proposed 351(k) product, the
application and the information submitted is expected to be comparably
complex and technically demanding as a proposed 351(a) application. FDA
may determine, in its discretion, that an element required under a
351(k) application to be unnecessary to support licensure of a
biosimilar or interchangeable product. In those cases, the number of
hours per response may be less than the hours estimated.
    A summary of the collection of information requirements in the
submission of a 351(k) application as described under the BPCI Act
follows:
    Section 351(k)(2)(A)(i) requires manufactures of 351(k) products to

submit an application for FDA review and licensure before marketing a
biosimilar product. An application submitted under this section shall
include information demonstrating that:
     The biological product is biosimilar to a reference
product based upon data derived from analytical studies, animal studies
(including toxicity) and a clinical study or studies (including
immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics). The Secretary
of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) may determine that any of
these elements is unnecessary.
     The biological product and reference product utilize the
same mechanism or mechanisms of action for the condition or conditions
of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling,
but only to the extent the mechanism or mechanisms of action are known
for the reference product.
     The condition or conditions of use prescribed,
recommended, or suggested in the labeling proposed for the biological
product have been previously approved for the reference product.
     The route of administration, the dosage form, and the
strength of the biological product are the same as those of the
reference product.
     The facility in which the biological product is
manufactured, processed, packed, or held meets standards designed to
assure that the biological product continues to be safe, pure, and
potent.
    Section 351(k)(2)(A)(iii) requires the application to include
publicly-available information regarding the Secretary's previous
determination that the reference product is safe, pure, and potent. The
application may include any additional information in support of the
application, including publicly-available information with respect to
the reference product or another biological product.
    Under section 351(k)(2)(B) and (k)(4), a manufacturer may include
information demonstrating that the biological product meets the
standards for interchangeability either in the application described
above to show biosimilarity, or in a supplement to such an application.
The information submitted to meet the standard for interchangeability
must show that: (1) The biological product is biosimilar to the
reference product and can be expected to produce the same clinical
result as the reference product in any given patient and (2) for a
biological product that is administered more than once to an
individual, the risk in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of
alternating or switching between use of the biological product and the
reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference
product without such alternation or switch.
    In addition to the collection of information regarding the
submission of a 351(k) application for a proposed biosimilar or
interchangeable biological product, section 351(l) of the BPCI Act
establishes procedures for identifying and resolving patent disputes
involving applications submitted under section 351(k) of the PHS Act.
The burden estimates for the patent provisions under section
351(l)(6)(C) of the BPCI Act are included in table 1 of this document
and are based on the estimated number of 351(k) biosimilar respondents.
Based on similar reporting requirements, FDA estimates this
notification will take 2 hours. A summary of the collection of
information requirements under 351(l)(6)(C) follows:
    Not later than 30 days after a complaint from the reference product
sponsor is served to a 351(k) applicant in an action for patent
infringement described under 351(l)(6), section 351(l)(6)(C) requires
that the 351(k) applicant provide the Secretary with notice and a copy
of such complaint. The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register
notice any complaint received under 351(l)(6)(C)(i).
    FDA has not received any 351(k) applications to date. Under table 1
of this document, the estimated number of respondents submitting 351(k)
applications is based on the estimated annual number of manufacturers
that would submit the required information to FDA and the estimated
annual number of 351(k) submissions FDA would receive. In making this
estimate, FDA has taken into account, among other things, the
expiration dates of patents that relate to potential reference
products, and general market interest in biological products that could
be candidates for 351(k) applications.
    On November 2 and 3, 2010, FDA held a public hearing and
established a public docket to obtain input on specific issues and
challenges associated with the implementation of the BPCI Act. (See
Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0477.) Based in part on this input, FDA is
announcing elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, the
availability of three draft guidances describing FDA's current
interpretation of certain statutory requirements added by the BPCI Act
as well as quality and analytical issues, demonstrating biosimilarity,
and implementation policy issues. These draft guidances are:
``Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the
Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009,'' ``Quality
Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Protein
Product,'' and ``Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating
Biosimilarity to a Reference Product.'' The Federal Register documents
for these guidances reference this Federal Register information
collection document regarding the burden on the submission of a 351(k)
application not otherwise covered by existing OMB approvals. In
addition, we note that the draft guidance on ``Scientific
Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product''
recommends that labeling for a product subject to approval under
section 351(k) include statements that indicate that: (1) The product
is approved as biosimilar to a reference product for stated
indication(s) and (2) the product (has or has not) been determined to
be interchangeable with the reference product. FDA has determined,
under 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2)), that these labeling recommendations are not
``collections of information'' for the purposes of the PRA because the
statements will comprise solely information that FDA will supply to the
applicant for the purpose of disclosing it to the public, i.e. FDA's
determination upon review of the application submitted under section
351(k), that the product is biosimilar and/or interchangeable to its
reference product.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
     351(k) Application for          Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
 biosimilars (42 U.S.C. 262(k))     respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
351(k)(2)(A)(i) and                            2               1               2             860            1720
 (k)(2)(A)(iii).................
351(k)(2)(B) and (k)(4).........               1               1               1             860             860

351(l)(6)(C)....................               2               1               2               2               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Dated: February 9, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-3548 Filed 2-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18760-18763]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08758]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0357; Product Identifier 2018-NM-035-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This proposed
AD was prompted by the manufacturer revising the airplane maintenance

manual (AMM) maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations.
This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate new maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations. We are proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Dassault
Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South
Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0357; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0357;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-035-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2018-0021, dated January 29, 2018 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault
Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Dassault Falcon 2000EX
aeroplanes, which are approved by EASA, are currently defined and
published in Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) Chapter 5-40. These instructions have been
identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition [i.e., reduced structural integrity of the
airplane].
    EASA previously issued [EASA] AD 2012-0157 [which corresponds to
FAA AD 2014-16-12 Amendment 39-17936 (79 FR 52187, September 3,
2014) (``AD 2014-16-12'')], requiring the actions described in
Dassault Falcon 2000EX AMM Chapter 5-40 (DGT 113877) at Revision 07.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Dassault published Revision 11
of Dassault Falcon 2000EX AMM Chapter 5-40 (DGT 113877), containing
new and/or more restrictive maintenance tasks and introducing (among
other changes) an operational test for Cursor Control Device.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2012-0157, which is superseded, and requires
accomplishment of the actions specified in the Dassault Falcon
2000EX AMM Chapter 5-40 (DGT 113877) at Revision 11 * * *.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0357.

Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2014-16-12

    This NPRM would not supersede AD 2014-16-12. Rather, we have
determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address
the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require revising the
maintenance or inspection program to incorporate the new maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations. Accomplishment of the
proposed actions would then terminate all of the requirements of AD
2014-16-12.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation has issued Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, DGT 113877, Revision 11, dated November 2017, of the
Dassault Falcon 2000EX Maintenance Manual. This service information
describes instructions applicable to airworthiness and safe life
limitations. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.
    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents. Compliance with these revisions is required by 14 CFR
91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered,
or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator
may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions.
In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to
paragraph (j)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required actions that will ensure the
continued damage tolerance of the affected structure.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the
airworthiness limitations section (ALS) inspection tasks, corrective
actions must be accomplished in accordance with Dassault Aviation
maintenance documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include
that requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required
by general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform
maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider
those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions
necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this
proposed AD.

Airworthiness Limitations Based on Type Design

    The FAA recently became aware of an issue related to the
applicability of ADs that require incorporation of an ALS revision into
an operator's maintenance or inspection program.
    Typically, when these types of ADs are issued by civil aviation
authorities of other countries, they apply to all airplanes covered
under an identified type certificate (TC). The corresponding FAA AD
typically retains applicability to all of those airplanes.
    In addition, U.S. operators must operate their airplanes in an
airworthy condition, in accordance with 14 CFR 91.7(a). Included in
this obligation is the requirement to perform any maintenance or
inspections specified in the ALS, and in accordance with the ALS as
specified in 14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403(c), unless an alternative has been
approved by the FAA.
    When a type certificate is issued for a type design, the specific
ALS, including revisions, is a part of that type design, as specified
in 14 CFR 21.31(c).
    The sum effect of these operational and maintenance requirements is
an obligation to comply with the ALS defined in the type design
referenced in the manufacturer's conformity statement. This obligation
may introduce a conflict with an AD that requires a specific ALS
revision if new airplanes are delivered with a later revision as part
of their type design.
    To address this conflict, the FAA has approved alternative methods
of compliance (AMOCs) that allow operators to incorporate the most
recent ALS revision into their maintenance/inspection programs, in lieu
of the ALS revision required by the AD. This eliminates the conflict
and enables the operator to comply with both the AD and the type
design.
    However, compliance with AMOCs is normally optional, and we
recently became aware that some operators choose to retain the AD-
mandated ALS revision in their fleet-wide maintenance/inspection
programs, including those for new airplanes delivered with later ALS
revisions, to help standardize the maintenance of the fleet. To ensure
that operators comply with the applicable ALS revision for newly
delivered airplanes containing a later revision than that specified in
an AD, we plan to limit the applicability of ADs that mandate ALS
revisions to those airplanes that are subject to an earlier revision of
the ALS, either as part of the type design or as mandated by an earlier
AD. This proposed AD therefore would apply to Dassault Aviation Model
FALCON 2000EX airplanes with an original certificate of airworthiness
or original export certificate of airworthiness that was issued on or
before January 15, 2018 (the effective date of the ALS revision
identified in this proposed AD). Operators of airplanes with an
original certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued after that date must comply with the airworthiness
limitations specified as part of the approved type design and
referenced on the type certificate data sheet.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 181 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we
recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the
past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per
airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program
changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-
operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90
work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2018-0357; Product Identifier
2018-NM-035-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 14, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR 79952,
December 21, 2010) (``AD 2010-26-05'') and AD 2014-16-12 Amendment
39-17936 (79 FR 52187, September 3, 2014) (``AD 2014-16-12'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX
airplanes, certificated in any category; with an original
certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of
airworthiness issued on or before January 15, 2018.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time limits/
maintenance checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by manufacturer revisions to the airplane
maintenance manual (AMM) that introduce new or more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are
issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
information specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations,
DGT 113877, Revision 11, dated November 2017, of the Dassault Falcon
2000EX Maintenance Manual. The initial compliance times for doing
the tasks are at the time specified in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness
Limitations, DGT 113877, Revision 11, dated November 2017, of the
Dassault Falcon 2000EX Maintenance Manual, or within 90 days after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later; except for
task number 52-20-00-610-801-01, the initial compliance time is
within 24 months after October 8, 2014 (the effective date of AD
2014-16-12). The term ``LDG'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of
any table in Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113877,
Revision 11, dated November 2017, means total airplane landings. The
term ``FH'' in the ``First Inspection'' column of any table in
Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113877, Revision 11,
dated November 2017, means total flight hours. The term ``FC'' in
the ``First Inspection'' column of any table in Chapter 5-40,
Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 113877, Revision 11, dated November
2017, means total flight cycles.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections), or intervals, may be used unless the actions, or
intervals, are approved as an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j)(1) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Actions for Other ADs

    (1) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates all of the requirements of AD 2014-16-12.
    (2) Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2010-26-05 for
Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2018-0021, dated January 29, 2018, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0357.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000,
South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 19, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-08758 Filed 4-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33186-33191]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15244]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1989-0011; FRL-9980-58--Region 3]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Recticon/Allied Steel
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is
issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Recticon/Allied Steel
Superfund Site (Site) located in East Coventry Township, Chester
County, Pennsylvania, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(the Commonwealth), through the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), have determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1989-0011, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: [email protected]
     Mail: USEPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Mail Code:
3HS21; Philadelphia, PA. 19103.
     Hand delivery: USEPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1989-0011 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 email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

USEPA Region III Administrative Records Room, 1650 Arch Street--6th
Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Business Hours:
Monday through Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm; by appointment only Local
Repository
East Coventry Township Municipal Building, 855 Ellis Woods Road,
Pottstown, PA 19464,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Call for Business Hours

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Hass, Remedial Project Manager,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 3HS21 1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region III announces its intent to delete the Recticon/Allied
Steel Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA
maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites
on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the
Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible
for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such
actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site for
thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Recticon/Allied Steel
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the Commonwealth, whether any of the following
criteria have been met:
    i. responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts Five-
Year Reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. Five-Year Reviews are no longer required at this Site;
however, EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the Commonwealth before developing this
Notice of Intent to Delete.
    (2) EPA has provided the Commonwealth 30 working days for review of
this notice prior to publication of it today
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate;
    (4) The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), has concurred with
deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major
local newspaper, the Pottstown Mercury. The newspaper notice announces
the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to
Delete the Site from the NPL.

    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on
this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines
it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator
will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public
notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary,
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the
site information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    EPA proposed the Recticon/Allied Steel Superfund Site (Site)
(CERCLIS ID PAD002353969) to the NPL on June 24, 1988 (53 FR 23988) and
added the Site as final on the NPL on October 4, 1989 (54 FR 41000).
The Site is located at the intersection of State Route 724 and Wells
Road in East Coventry Township, PA and is approximately 8 miles
northwest of Phoenixville, PA and 3.2 miles southeast of Pottstown, PA.
The 5-acre Recticon/Allied Steel Site consists of two properties, the
former Allied Steel Products Corporation facility and the former
Recticon facility.
    From 1972-1988, Allied Steel Products Corporation (Allied) began
fabrication of various steel products on a property located on the
eastern corner of the intersection. Recticon was a subsidiary of
Rockwell International and manufactured silicon wafers for the
electronics industry from 1974 to 1981 on the western corner of the
intersection. In 1979, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources (PADER), now known as the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), detected trichloroethylene (TCE) in
the groundwater beneath the Site. In 1980, a contractor determined that
leakage in the area of Allied's compressor room had released TCE onto
the ground. High levels of TCE were found in Allied's on-site well. In
addition, sediment samples taken from the drainage ditch alongside the
Allied building yielded high levels of copper and zinc, well above
ecological risk levels.
    The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Recticon entered into a
Consent Order in 1981 to undertake initial cleanup actions at the Site.
Recticon, under PADER oversight, removed contaminated soils from the
Site and transported them to an EPA-approved facility for disposal.
Recticon also pumped and treated some of the groundwater beneath the
Site for a few months. Under PADER oversight, Allied Steel also
excavated contaminated soil and shipped it off-site for proper
disposal. In 1990, EPA entered into two Consent Orders with Rockwell
International, the former parent company of Recticon, to provide
residential well filters to nearby residents and to conduct the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS).

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The RI/FS was conducted from January 1991 through May 1993 and
determined that soil, sediment, and groundwater were impacted by
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals from the historic
operation of the Allied and Recticon facilities.

Selected Remedy

    The Selected Remedy for the Site was documented in a June 30, 1993
Record of Decision (ROD) and modified in an August 29, 1997 ROD
Amendment; a September 10, 2004 Explanation of Significant Differences
(ESD); and a May 26, 2010 ESD. The following sections discuss the
components of the Selected Remedy and details on implementation.
1993 Record of Decision
    The Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) for the Site as established
in the 1993 ROD were as follows:
    1. Prevent human exposure to contaminants in the groundwater.
    2. Restore contaminated groundwater to its beneficial use and to
background concentrations, if technically practicable, or Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs), whichever is more stringent.
    3. Protect uncontaminated groundwater and surface water for current
and future use, and environmental receptors.
    After the 1993 ROD was finalized, EPA divided the Site remedial
work into three operable units (OUs) to facilitate management of the
remedial process.

 Operable Unit 1 (OU1)--Water Line
 Operable Unit 2 (OU2)--Soil
 Operable Unit 3 (OU3)--Groundwater
OU1--Water Line
    The Selected Remedy for OU1 in the 1993 ROD consisted of the
installation of a public water supply to East Coventry Township to 14
residences and businesses.
OU2--Soil
    The Selected Remedy for OU2 in the 1993 ROD consisted of the
excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils. The soil
cleanup levels in the 1993 ROD were based on the amount of
contamination that could remain in the soil without further
contributing to groundwater contamination above ``background''
concentrations.
    The 1997 ROD Amendment changed the cleanup levels for Site
contaminants of concern (COCs) in groundwater from ``background''
concentrations to MCLs. This change was based on the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania's enactment of the Land Recycling and Environmental
Remediation Standards Act (Act 2) on May 19, 1995, 35 Pa. Stat. Sec.
6026.101 et seq., which established MCLs as the protective groundwater
cleanup levels. As a result of the change in groundwater cleanup levels
to MCLs, a new soil cleanup level was calculated for the proposed soil
excavation response at the Site. Site-specific modeling was used to
determine the maximum concentration of TCE that could be in the soil
and not cause leaching into the groundwater above the MCL. The modeling
resulted in a cleanup level of 1,600 [micro]g/kg of TCE in soil. It was
determined that additional soil excavation was no longer necessary
because the concentrations of contaminants in the soil after the
initial response action were below this cleanup level.
    The 1997 ROD Amendment also required that institutional controls be
implemented to prohibit soil excavation on the Recticon property that
could result in exposure to contaminated soil via direct contact and to
prohibit any new wells on Site until the groundwater cleanup levels are
met.

    The 2004 ESD eliminated the requirement for institutional controls
to prohibit direct contact with the soil on the Recticon property. The
ESD identified PADEP Act 2 Media Specific Concentrations (MSCs) for TCE
for direct contact with soils as the cleanup level that would need to
be exceeded for new institutional controls to be necessary. No TCE was
detected in soil at the Site exceeding the PADEP Act 2 MSC for direct
contact.
    The ESD also eliminated the requirement to prohibit the
construction of new groundwater wells at the Site.
OU3--Groundwater
    The Selected Remedy for OU3 initially consisted of extraction and
treatment of groundwater with discharge to the Schuylkill River
following a pre-design hydrogeologic investigation and well
abandonment. In accordance with the 1993 ROD, a comprehensive pre-
design study of the groundwater at the Site was conducted to further
define the outer boundaries of the groundwater plume and the hydraulic
properties within the aquifer. Based on the findings of this study, a
groundwater recovery system for contaminated groundwater was designed.
The groundwater recovery system consisted of extraction, shallow tray
air stripping and granular activated carbon treatment to remove the
VOCs, and discharge of treated water to the Schuylkill River.
    The 2010 ESD changed the groundwater extraction and treatment
remedy to enhanced natural bioremediation of TCE. A successful pilot
test, which reduced the levels of TCE in the Site wells, had been
conducted using this technology. The 2010 ESD also re-instituted the
requirement for institutional controls for groundwater use on both the
Recticon and Allied properties, since all wells on these properties
were not below the cleanup levels.

Response Actions

    The Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA) were performed by
Rockwell under Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) No. III-94-16-DC
issued on March 24, 1994. In accordance with the 1993 ROD, a Phase 1
Archeological Survey was performed in April 1995 prior to the start of
onsite construction activity and determined that the Site had no
historical significance. In 1999, Rockwell spun off its semiconductor
business as an independent company called Conexant Systems, Inc.
Conexant assumed responsibility for performing the RD/RA as required by
the UAO.
OU1--Water Line
    Construction of the water line was completed between September 1998
through November 1999 and consisted of extending a water main to the
Site area and connecting 14 residences and businesses. Once the
municipal water lines were connected, filtration systems previously
used at the properties were no longer necessary. EPA performed the
final inspection of the water line and connections on December 13,
1999.
OU2--Soil
    In accordance with the 1993 ROD, verification sampling was
conducted on the soil at the former Allied facility to determine the
source and extent of copper and zinc contamination. An ecological
assessment indicated that the copper and zinc levels exceeded the
Region III Biological Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) screening
values, and that any terrestrial or aquatic receptors on or near the
Site would be exposed to unacceptable levels of these contaminants. As
a result, EPA conducted a time-critical removal at the Site in April
1998. Six inches of contaminated soil were excavated and removed from a
small portion of the Site known as the ``crane area'' and shipped off-
site for proper disposal. The area was backfilled with clean soil and
grass was planted.
    The 1993 ROD also required the excavation of TCE contaminated soils
on the former Recticon facility. This requirement was modified by the
1997 ROD Amendment, which changed the soil cleanup level. As a result
of this change, no further soil excavation was required and
institutional controls were instead required to prohibit soil
excavation. The 2004 ESD subsequently eliminated the requirement for
institutional controls for soil.
OU3--Groundwater
    Construction of the groundwater portion of the remedy started in
June 1998 and consisted of the installation of approximately 10
additional monitoring wells, an extraction well and the construction of
a groundwater extraction and treatment system. EPA conducted a pre-
final inspection of OU3 on April 19, 1999 and determined that Rockwell
and its contractors had constructed the remedy in accordance with
remedial design plans and specifications. A Preliminary Closeout Report
(PCOR) was issued on December 14, 1999, documenting Construction
Completion for the Site.
    A Pilot Study was initiated in 2001 to evaluate the effectiveness
of using enhanced bioremediation to treat groundwater contamination
more effectively than groundwater extraction and treatment. The study
consisted of injecting non-toxic food-grade amendments and other
approved supplements into the groundwater to enhance the natural
biodegradation occurring at the Site. A total of 13 injections were
completed during the Pilot Study from June 2001 through February 2007
utilizing several different amendments. The Pilot Study effectively
reduced VOC contamination in the groundwater close to groundwater
cleanup levels. The 2010 ESD replaced groundwater extraction and
treatment with enhanced bioremediation based on the results of the
Pilot Study.

Cleanup Levels

    Table 1 describes the soil and groundwater cleanup levels
established in the 1997 ROD Amendment:

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              COC                     Medium              Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCE...........................  Soil.............  1,600 [mu]g/kg
TCE...........................  Groundwater......  5 [mu]g/L
Vinyl Chloride................  Groundwater......  2 [mu]g/L
1,1 dichloroethene............  Groundwater......  7 [mu]g/L
1,2 dichloroethane............  Groundwater......  5 [mu]g/L
1,2 dichloroethene............  Groundwater......  70 [mu]g/L
Tetrachloroethene.............  Groundwater......  5 [mu]g/L
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No soil was identified with TCE concentrations exceeding 1,600
[mu]g/kg; therefore, no soil excavation was performed. Soil
contaminated with zinc and copper at the Allied facility was excavated
and disposed offsite under a time-critical removal action by EPA in
1998.
    Groundwater COC concentrations at all sampling locations were below
the groundwater cleanup levels during the 2011 annual sampling event.
In accordance with the 1993 ROD, twelve (12) quarters of groundwater
sampling were performed between October 2011 and September 2014 to
confirm that the cleanup levels have been achieved. Vinyl chloride was
detected in one well during this sampling at a concentration exceeding
the cleanup level of 2 [mu]g/L and TCE was detected in one well at a
concentration exceeding the cleanup level of 5 [mu]g/L. For these two
wells, statistical tools specified in EPA program guidance were used to
evaluate attainment for vinyl chloride and TCE. These data were
statistically analyzed and the cleanup level exceedances were
determined not to be statistically significant. No other samples
identified any COC above the groundwater cleanup levels throughout the
twelve quarters of sampling.
    Additionally, EPA performed a cumulative risk assessment using the
2014 groundwater sampling results. Groundwater COC concentrations were
compared to EPA Tap Water Risk Screening Level (RSLs) and if the RSL
was exceeded during any of the 2014 sampling events, a risk assessment
was performed. The data were grouped in Exposure Areas (EAs) based on
groundwater sampling locations. The cumulative risk results were below
or within EPA's acceptable risk range for each of the EAs.
    Based on the results of the twelve quarters of groundwater
monitoring and the results of the cumulative risk assessment, the
groundwater cleanup levels have been achieved at the Site.
    EPA subsequently issued a Final Close Out Report (FCOR) for the
Site dated December 17, 2017. The FCOR summarized the remedial
activities conducted at the Site, and concluded that EPA has
successfully completed all response actions for the Site in accordance
with Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites (OSWER
Directive 9320.2-09A-P).

Operation and Maintenance

    Operation and Maintenance (O&M) activities for the Site were
focused on the groundwater portion of the remedy (OU3). The initial
groundwater remedy involved extraction and treatment of contaminated
groundwater at the Site from 1998 through 2002. The water was treated
using a shallow tray air stripper and GAC and the treated water was
discharged to the Schuylkill River. The discharge was in continuous
compliance with the substantive requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The system treated approximately
200 million gallons of contaminated groundwater prior to being shut
down in December 2002.
    The 2010 ESD replaced the groundwater extraction and treatment
component of the Selected Remedy with enhanced bioremediation.
Groundwater monitoring confirmed that groundwater cleanup levels have
been achieved at the Site and no ongoing or future O&M or additional
groundwater monitoring is necessary.
Institutional Controls
    The 1993 ROD required an institutional control to restrict access
to those portions of the aquifer where contaminants remain above
performance standards. Institutional controls were also included in the
1997 ROD Amendment to prohibit soil excavation on the Recticon property
and installation of new wells on the Recticon property until
groundwater cleanup levels were met.
    The 2004 ESD stated that institutional controls were no longer
required for soil and that the groundwater was making progress toward
achieving cleanup levels, therefore, institutional controls prohibiting
new wells were no longer required. However, in the 2010 ESD, EPA
determined that institutional controls for groundwater were still
required since the groundwater cleanup levels had not yet been
achieved. Therefore, the installation of new groundwater wells on the
two properties comprising the Site needed to be prohibited until the
groundwater at the Site meets the cleanup levels selected in the 1997
ROD Amendment. This institutional control has been implemented by deed
notices which have been placed on the titles for the two Site
properties pursuant to a 2002 Prospective Purchaser Agreement with the
current owner of the Allied portion of the Site, and a 2005 Consent
Decree with Wellsford, Inc., the current owner of the Recticon portion
of the Site.
    The Chester County Health Departments Rules and Regulations, Sec.
5<IP_ADDRESS>, currently provide an additional layer of use restriction
for the Site groundwater by prohibiting the installation or use of
drinking water supply wells in the vicinity of the Site unless the
wells are tested for contamination and treated if contamination is
identified. The relevant provisions of the regulations are provided
below:

    5<IP_ADDRESS> A permit shall be denied and/or approval to use the
water supply shall be withheld in those areas of the County where
the Chester County Health Department has been notified by State or
Federal agencies or other sources that the area is unsuitable for
the installation of on-site water wells due to known groundwater
contamination unless the following conditions are met:
    5<IP_ADDRESS>.1 The water well must be tested prior to use and on a
yearly basis for all known and suspected contaminants in the area.
    5<IP_ADDRESS>.2 When the water quality analysis shows that the
contaminant level exceeds the maximum contaminant levels allowed by
the Safe Drinking Water Act, the water must be treated by the
appropriate treatment unit before approval can be granted.

    As discussed in detail above, groundwater cleanup levels have been
achieved at the Site. Therefore, in accordance with the 2010 ESD,
institutional controls prohibiting the installation of new wells at the
Site are no longer required.

Five-Year Review

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and as provided in the current
guidance on Five-Year Reviews Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance,
OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001, EPA must conduct a statutory
Five-Year Review if hazardous substances remain on-site above levels
that would not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The
Five-Year Reviews for the Site were signed on the following dates:

1. First Five-Year Review--May 14, 2005
2. Second Five-Year Review--June 23, 2010
3. Third Five-Year Review--May 11, 2015

    No issues or recommendations were identified in the 2015 Third
Five-Year Review. The Protectiveness Statement in the 2015 Third Five-
Year Review was as follows:
    ``The Site is protective of human health and the environment. The
RAOs established for the Site have been accomplished.''
    There are no hazardous substances or materials left on-site above
levels that would not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure; therefore, additional Five-Year Reviews are not required in
the future.

Community Involvement

    EPA community relations staff conducted an active campaign to
ensure that the residents were well informed about activities at the
Site. Community relations activities included the following:

     Interviews of East Coventry Township officials for Five-
Year Reviews
     Annual Meetings with Chester County Board of Health
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA's
community involvement activities associated with this deletion will
consist of placing the deletion docket in the local Site information
repository and placing a public notice of EPA's intent to delete the
Site from the NPL in the Pottstown Mercury, a major, local newspaper of
general circulation.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    Construction of the Selected Remedy at the Site has been completed
and O&M was completed in accordance with the EPA-approved O&M Plan.
Institutional controls are no longer necessary at the Site. All RAOs,
performance standards, and cleanup levels established in the 1993 ROD,
1997 ROD Amendment, 2004 ESD, and 2010 ESD have been achieved and the
Selected Remedy is protective of human health and the environment in
the short- and long-term. No further Superfund response is necessary to
protect human health and the environment.
    The Site Deletion procedures specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have
been followed for the deletion of the Site. EPA, with concurrence of
the Commonwealth through PADEP, has determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is
deleting the Site from the NPL.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 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.

    Dated: June 19, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-15244 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 94 (Thursday, May 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29013-29015]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10284]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88838; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Eliminate a Transitional Rule That Has Expired Related to Nasdaq Global
and Global Select Markets Entry Fees

May 8, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 5, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule

change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to delete [sic] Rule 5910(a)(1) to remove a
transitional rule that is no longer applicable to any companies.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq proposes to modify Rule 5910(a)(1) to remove a transitional
rule that is no longer applicable to any companies. This transitional
rule was adopted in connection with changes to the entry fees for the
Nasdaq Global and Global Select Markets.\3\ These changes to the entry
fees were fully phased in on July 1, 2019 and the transitional rule no
longer applies to any companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84930 (December 21,
2018), 83 FR 67752 (December 31, 2018) (SR-NASDAQ-2018-105)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
Nasdaq believes that it is in the public interest to eliminate the
obsolete Nasdaq Global and Global Select Markets entry fee rule.
Eliminating this provision, which was fully phased out on July 1, 2019,
will improve the readability of Nasdaq's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Nasdaq does not believe the
proposed rule change, which merely eliminates obsolete provisions and
does not make any substantive change to Nasdaq's rules, will impose any
burden, nor have any impact, on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-018 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-018. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-018 and should be submitted
on or before June 4, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-10284 Filed 5-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P