[Federal Register: February 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8591]
[DOCID:fr25fe09-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday,
February 26, 2009 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The Acting General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session and determined that no
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
February 26, 2009 will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 20, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-3993 Filed 2-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 180 (Thursday, September 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55741-55742]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23271]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-1623; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-10]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Tracy, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects an error in a final rule published in the
Federal Register of August 31, 2015, by amending the geographic
coordinates of Tracy Municipal Airport, Tracy, CA, in Class E airspace.
This does not affect the boundaries or operating requirements of the
airspace.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 15, 2015. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Haga, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA, 98057; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule, in the Federal Register, amending
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at
Tracy Municipal Airport, Tracy, CA (80 FR 52392 August 31, 2015).
Subsequent to publication the FAA identified an error in the
longitudinal coordinate of the airport reference point for Tracy
Municipal Airport. This action corrects the error.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
Federal Register of August 31, 2015 (80 FR 52392) FR Doc. 2015-21414,
the longitude coordinate in the regulatory text on page 52393, column
2, line 10, is corrected as follows:

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

AWP CA E5 Tracy, CA (Corrected)

0
Remove ``long. 121[deg]26'31'' W.'' and add in its place ``long.
121[deg]26'30'' W.''

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on September 08, 2015.
Christopher Ramirez,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-23271 Filed 9-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

To:	Margaret Sheppard; U.S. EPA

Cc:	Monica Shimamura, Bella Maranion; U.S. EPA

From:	Neha Mukhi, Kara Altshuler, Reva Rubenstein, Mark Wagner; ICF
International

Date:	September 11, 2009

Re:	Recommendation for an Acceptable Exposure Limit for C6-
Perflouroketone

(EPA Contract EP-W-06-008, TO 038, Task 6)

This memorandum recommends Acceptable Exposure Limit (AEL) for C6-
Perflouroketone and summarizes toxicity information used to develop it.

Please contact Mark Wagner<PHONE_NUMBER> with questions or comments.

Development of AEL for C6-Perfluoroketone

ICF has developed a revised AEL for C6-perfluoroketone based on a review
of recent additional studies in the C6-perfluoroketone toxicity
database.  These studies are

Sub-chronic (13-week) inhalation toxicity study with MTDID 5789 in rats
(TNO, 2007)

Reproduction/ developmental toxicity screening text after inhalatory
exposure to MTDID 5789 in rats (TNO, 2007)

In the subchronic inhalation study, groups of 10 each male and female
Wistar rats were exposed to 0, 300, 1000 or 3000 ppm (target
concentrations) C6-perfluoroketone for 6 hours/day, 5 days/week for 13
weeks.  In addition, two recovery groups of 10 each male and female rats
were exposed to 0 or 3000 ppm of the test compound as with the main
groups of the study and were allowed to recover for 28-days post
exposure.  This recovery period was intended to investigate the
reversibility of noted adverse effects.

The study evaluated typical parameters for subchronic toxicity studies
including clinical/cageside observations, food consumption/efficiency,
body weight changes, hematology/clinical chemistry, localized effects,
gross necropsy, organ changes, and organ histopathology.  No
exposure-related effects were noted in the following parameters:
clinical/cage side observations, food consumption/efficiency, body
weight, food consumption or opthalmoscopy.  In addition, no local
effects were noted.

C6 perfluoroketone did induce effects on the liver (either shown
directly or via changes in clinical chemistry endpoints) in male rats in
all exposure groups and in female rats in the high-concentration group.
These effects included increased relative liver weight in all male
exposure groups, increased albumin/globulin ratio in all exposure groups
and the following effects in the mid- and  high-concentration groups:
decreased plasma cholesterol, increased alkaline phosphatase, and
increased albumin content.  Females in the mid- and high-concentration
groups had increased albumin content, while those in the
high-concentration group alone had increased albumin/globulin ratio and
relative liver weight.  Histopathological changes observed in male rats
included accumulation of eosinophilic granules in hepatocytes in mid-
and high-concentration groups (one high-concentration male also showed
hypertrophy cell foci [enlargement of cell size], presumably as a result
of the increased metabolic response to the exposure compound).  These
results were accompanied by an increase in the activity of peroxisomal
oxidizing enzyme activity (acyl CoA-oxidase) related to peroxisomal
proliferation, predominantly in males at all exposure concentrations,
but also in females in the high-concentration group.   The liver effects
were not noted in recovery rats after 28 days post-exposure, with the
exception of the persistence of slight or very slight increased
eosinophilic granulation in 4/10 male rats at 3000 ppm.  The study
authors identified a NOEL of 1000 ppm for female rats, were unable to
define a NOEL for male rats, and identified a NOAEL/LOAEL of 300 ppm for
male rats.

The subchronic study essentially validated the results of the previous
28-day inhalation study in rats using C6-perfluoroketone, which
indicated that peroxisomal proliferation resulted from rat exposure to
concentrations of 1000 ppm and higher.

As stated in the 13-week study report, peroxisomal proliferation is a
liver response observed in rodents, predominantly male rats, in response
to exposure to certain compounds.  Responses in humans are poor or
absent following exposure to peroxisomal proliferators, due to genetic
differences in the elements necessary to respond to these compounds.
For this reason, peroxisomal proliferation is considered to be a
species-specific response with more limited application to humans.  For
this reason, ICF has chosen the 1000 ppm exposure concentration in the
13-week study as the point of departure for developing the AEL for
C6-perfluoroketone.

A revised AEL has been developed as follows:

	1000 ppm x 6 hours (exposure of rats)/8 hours (workday) = 750 ppm (HEC)

750/3 (UF) = 250 ppm (AEL)

One uncertainty factor of 3 has been applied to account for interspecies
differences between rats and humans.  No other UFs have been applied.
The database is comprehensive, including a one-generation reproductive
and developmental toxicity study in rats which showed no adverse effects
at any concentration tested up to 3000 ppm.  Therefore, the original UF
of 10 applied for database limitations in the initial AEL development
has been removed.

We are aware that we have chosen as a point of departure an exposure
concentration that results in liver effects in the male rat (e.g.,
histopathological changes in the liver and increased relative liver
weight).  Studies show that rats and mice appear to be more sensitive
than humans to peroxisomal proliferators.  That is not to say that
humans are not responsive; they are responsive, for example, to a
certain class of pharmaceuticals known as hypolipidemic fibrates, such
as clofibrate, via activation of the peroxisome proliferator activated
receptor (PPAR).  There has been concern in the past with peroxisomal
proliferation in compounds that induce liver cancer in rodents and the
possibility that cancer induction is a concern with regard to humans
(e.g., DEHP, TCE, etc.; Melnick, 2001; Keshava and Caldwell, 2006).
However, these compounds are much less potent as PPAR receptor agonists
than the hypolipidemic fibrates.  Further, these agents also induce
biological effects in animal models that appear to occur independently
of peroxisome proliferation.  It does not appear that C6-perfluoroketone
induces any other relevant toxicological effects in the rat other than
peroxisome proliferation in the liver and its associated effects.
Therefore, we feel that establishing the AEL for C6-perfluoroketone at a
maximum of 250 ppm is appropriate and supported by the science.

References

Keshava N and JC Caldwell (2006) Key issues in the role of peroxisome
proliferator-activated receptor agonism and cell signaling in
trichloroethylene toxicity.  Environ Health Perspect 114(9):1464-1470.

Melnick RL (2001) Is peroxisome proliferation an obligatory precursor
step in the carcinogenicity of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)? Environ
Health Perspect 109(5):437-442.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33299-33300]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14814]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86328; File No. SR-FINRA-2019-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Make a Technical Correction and Other Non-
Substantive Changes to FINRA Rules

July 8, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on June 27, 2019, Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
FINRA. 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

    FINRA is proposing to make technical and other non-substantive
changes within FINRA rules.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's
website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    On April 10, 2019, the SEC announced the immediate effectiveness of
the adoption of the remaining legacy NASD rules as FINRA rules in the
consolidated FINRA rulebook and the remaining Incorporated NYSE Rules
and Incorporated NYSE Rule Interpretations in the consolidated FINRA
rulebook as a separate Temporary Dual FINRA-NYSE Member Rules
Series.\3\ Among other things, the rule change, File No. SR-FINRA-2019-
009, was intended to move, without any substantive changes, specified
Incorporated NYSE Rules, including their supplementary materials, to
the Temporary Dual FINRA-NYSE Member Rules Series.\4\ These rules now
bear a ``T'' modifier after the rule and interpretation number to
denote their placement in the Temporary Dual FINRA-NYSE Member Rules
Series. In File No. SR-FINRA-2019-009, Supplementary Material .10
(Exceptions to Rule 409(b)) under Incorporated NYSE Rule 409
(Statements of Accounts to Customers) was inadvertently omitted from
the set of Incorporated NYSE Rules described in the rule change.\5\
Neither Exhibit 4 nor Exhibit 5 to File No. SR-FINRA-2019-009 included
this supplementary material as rule text. Consequently, Supplementary
Material .10 to Incorporated NYSE Rule 409 does not appear in Temporary
Dual FINRA-NYSE Rule 409T as was originally intended. The proposed rule
change would correct this technical error by restoring Supplementary
Material .10 from Incorporated NYSE Rule 409 to Temporary Dual FINRA-
NYSE Rule 409T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85589 (April 10,
2019), 84 FR 15646 (April 16, 2019) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2019-009).
    \4\ File No. SR-FINRA-2019-009 specified some Incorporated NYSE
Rule definitions and Incorporated NYSE Rule 375 and the related
Interpretation to be deleted. Some of the then existing set of
Incorporated NYSE Rules that also had supplementary materials and
were moved to the Temporary Dual FINRA-NYSE Member Rules Series
included: NYSE Rule 311T (Formation and Approval of Member
Organization); NYSE Rule 313T (Submission of Partnership Articles--
Submission of Corporate Documents); NYSE Rule 321T (Formation or
Acquisition of Subsidiaries); NYSE Rule 408T (Discretionary Power in
Customers' Accounts); and NYSE Rule 416T (Questionnaires and
Reports).
    \5\ See supra note 4. See also retired Incorporated NYSE Rule
409.10 located at: http://finra.complinet.com/en/display/display_main.html?rbid=2403&record_id=13957. Retired Incorporated
NYSE Rule 409.10 includes a reference to ``[] 2409],'' which FINRA
is proposing to eliminate on the basis that the cross-reference is
obsolete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposed rule change would update a rule reference
in FINRA CAT, LLC Delegation Plan to clarify that the SEC Rule 613
referenced in the Delegation Plan refers to Rule 613 of SEC Regulation
NMS and to reflect FINRA Manual style convention changes. The FINRA
CAT, LLC Delegation Plan was filed for immediate effectiveness on April
24, 2019.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85764 (May 2, 2019),
84 FR 20173 (May 8, 2019) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2019-015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that
the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the
date of the filing, so FINRA can implement the proposed rule change
immediately.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\7\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will
provide greater clarity to members and the public regarding FINRA rules
by restoring the text of Incorporated NYSE Rule 409.10 to the
consolidated FINRA rulebook as Temporary Dual FINRA-NYSE Rule 409T.10
and by making technical updates to FINRA CAT, LLC Delegation Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change brings
clarity and consistency to FINRA rules without adding any burden on
firms.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 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. FINRA has satisfied
this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\10\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. In its filing with the
Commission, FINRA has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day
operative delay to allow FINRA to immediately implement the proposed
conforming and corrective changes, including restoring the text of
Incorporated NYSE Rule 409.10 to the consolidated FINRA rulebook as
Temporary Dual FINRA-NYSE Rule 409T.10. The Commission notes that FINRA
has stated that the proposed rule change is non-substantive in that it
would correct a technical error and update a rule reference. For this
reason, the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest and hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates
the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-FINRA-2019-018 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-FINRA-2019-018. 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 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-
FINRA-2019-018 and should be submitted on or before August 2, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14814 Filed 7-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                 ATTACHMENT E                                             Survey to Test Awareness and Perceptions of EPA's Safer Choice Label:                         General Adult Population Survey                                                                                OMB Control No. 2070-0189                          Approval expires 02/28/17                                                  The annual public burden for this collection of information is estimated at 0.33 hours per response. Responses will be private to the extent permitted by law. This is a voluntary collection; respondents do not have to respond if there is no OMB control number. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed application to this address.                              Survey for EPA Safer Choice                Awareness and Perceptions of Safer Choice Label                          General Adult Population Survey

The survey below is designed to test awareness and perceptions of the primary Safer Choice label. In the event that EPA needs to test awareness and perceptions of the alternate fragrance-free label, the same survey will be used, with the addition of four questions.

 Are you familiar with a labeling program implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that enables consumers to select products that can help protect the environment and are safer for people, families, and pets?

 Yes  No [SKIP to Q3]

 What is the name of the labeling program? [Open-ended]

 For 15 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has implemented a voluntary labeling program that enables consumers to select products that can help protect the environment and are safer for families and pets. This labeling program, called "Safer Choice," evaluates human health and environmental concerns associated with traditional and alternative chemicals in a variety of products, including commonly used household cleaning products. Products that meet EPA's Safer Choice Standard for Safer Products are allowed to carry the Safer Choice label. When you see the Safer Choice label on a product it means the Safer Choice scientific review team has screened each ingredient for potential human health and environmental effects and has determined the product contains only those ingredients that pose the least concern.

   Now that you have heard more about the labeling program, do you recall hearing or seeing anything about this labeling program?

 Yes  No

 Have you seen this label on any products you have purchased?  (show image of label)

 Yes  No

 Based on what you now know about the labeling program, how likely are you to use the Safer Choice label to help you select a product to purchase?

 Extremely likely  Very likely  Somewhat likely  Slightly likely  Not at all likely

Please answer the following questions about the program name and visual design of the Safer Choice label (show image of label).

  On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates that you "strongly disagree", and 5 indicates that you "strongly agree," please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

                                                                       Strongly Disagree                                        1                                Somewhat Disagree                                        2 Neutral - don't agree or disagree                                        3                                 Somewhat Agree                                        4                                 Strongly Agree                                        5 1 I would notice this label if I saw it on a product or packaging

2 The label is attractive and appealing

3 The visual design is effective in showing that the product is safer for people and families

4 The visual design is effective in showing that the product helps protect the environment

5 The name "Safer Choice" is effective in showing that the product is safer for people and families

6 The name "Safer Choice" is effective in showing that the product helps protect the environment

7 The tagline "Meets U.S. EPA Safer Product Standards" is credible

8 This label is a useful resource for shoppers

9 I would use this label to help me decide which product to buy

 Have you seen products with this label in stores where you shop for household goods?      YES  NO  I don't know         Have you purchased a product with this label in the past six months?

 YES  NO  I don't know

 What would most motivate you to purchase products with this label? [PLEASE SELECT ONE RESPONSE ONLY]

 If it was cost competitive  If it was easy to locate on store shelves  If there was scientific information readily available to support claims  If I had a coupon to encourage me to buy the product  If it was proven to be safer for children and animals  I would not purchase products with  this label

OPTIONAL FRAGRANCE FREE DESIGN QUESTIONS

In addition to the general design, there is a "fragrance free" label for products. Please answer the following questions as they relate to the fragrance free design.   FRAGRANCE FREE DESIGN

On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates that you "strongly disagree", and 5 indicates that you "strongly agree," please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

                                                                       Strongly Disagree                                        1                                Somewhat Disagree                                        2 Neutral - don't agree or disagree                                        3                                 Somewhat Agree                                        4                                 Strongly Agree                                        5 1 I prefer to buy fragrance free products for my family

2 I buy fragrance free products on a regular basis (at least once a month)

3 The label is effective in showing that the product is fragrance free

4 I would use this label to help me decide which product to buy


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25047-25048]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08907]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2012-0012]

Temporary Labor Camps; Extension of the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA is soliciting public comments concerning the proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements
contained in the Temporary Labor Camps Standard.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
June 27, 2022.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for assistance in
locating docket submissions.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number for this Federal Register notice (OSHA-2012-0012).
OSHA will place comments and requests to speak, including personal
information, in the public docket, which may be available online.
Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal
information such as social security numbers and birthdates. For further
information on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with a minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining said information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    OSHA is requesting approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for certain information collection requirements contained
in the Temporary Labor Camps Standard (29 CFR 1910.142). The main
purpose of these provisions is to eliminate the incidence of
communicable disease among temporary labor camp residents. The standard
requires camp superintendents to report immediately to the local health
officer the name and address of any individual in the camp known to
have, or suspected of having, a communicable disease (29 CFR
1910.142(l)(1)). Whenever there is a case of suspected food poisoning
or an unusual prevalence of any illness in which fever, diarrhea, sore
throat, vomiting, or jaundice is a prominent symptom, the standard
requires the camp superintendent to report said illness immediately to
the health authority (29 CFR 1910.142(l)(2)). In addition, the standard
requires separate toilet rooms to be provided for each sex where the
toilet rooms are shared. These rooms must be marked ``for men'' and
``for women'' by signs printed in English and in the native language of
the persons occupying the camp or marked with easily understood
pictures or symbols (29 CFR 1910.142(d)(4)).

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     the accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Temporary Labor Camps Standard
(29 CFR 1910.142). The Agency is requesting an adjustment increase in
the number of burden hours from 47 hours to 48 hours. There was an
increase in the number of cases from 564 cases to 577. This was due to
the increase in the incidents reported of notifiable diseases from 870
per 100,000 to 1,028 per 100,000 people.
    The agency will summarize any comments submitted in response to
this notice and will include this summary in its request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Temporary Labor Camps (29 CFR 1910.142).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0096.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 56,160.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Total Number of Responses: 577.
    Average Time per Response: Time per response is 5 minutes to report
each incident to local public health authorities.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 48.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. Please
note: While OSHA's Docket Office is continuing to accept and process
submissions by regular mail, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Docket
Office is closed to the public and not able to receive submissions to
the docket by hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2012-0012). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify electronic comments by
your name, date, and the docket number so the agency can attach them to
your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as their social security number
and dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov website to
submit comments and access the docket is available at the website's
``User Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information
about materials not available from the website, and for assistance in
using the internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health directed the preparation of this notice.
The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77
FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 18, 2022.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-08907 Filed 4-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 74538]
[DOCID:fr08de08-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Regulation S-B, OMB Control No. 3235-00417, SEC File No. 270-
370.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Regulation S-B (17 CFR 228.10, 228.101-228.103, 228.201-228.202,
228.303-228.308, 228.310, 228.401-228.407, 228.501-228.512, 228.601,
228.701-228.703) specifies the non-financial disclosure requirements
applicable to registration statements under the Securities Act of 1933
(15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) and registration statements under Section 12,
annual and other reports under Section 13 and 15(d), going-private
transaction statements under Section 13, tender offer statements under
Section 13 and 14, annual reports to security holders and proxy and
information statements under Section 14 and any other documents
required to be filed by small business issuers under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d)). Regulation S-B
is assigned one burden hour for administrative convenience. Regulation
S-B will expire on March 15, 2009.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Lewis W. Walker, Acting
Director/CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 1, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28953 Filed 12-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3883-3884]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1257]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595; FRL-9255-6; EPA ICR No. 2402.01; OMB Control No.
2040-NEW]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Willingness To Pay Survey for Sec.  316(b)
Existing Facilities Cooling Water Intake Structures (New)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request for a new
collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of
the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before February 22,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2010-0595 to:
    (1) EPA by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2010-0595.
     Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595. Please include a total of
3 copies.
     Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements
should be made.
    (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik Helm, Office of Water, Office of
Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division, Economic and
Environmental Assessment Branch, 4303T, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 21, 2010 (74 FR 42438), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received five comments during the
comment period, which are addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments
on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this
notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0595 which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure
is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Willingness to Pay Survey for Section 316(b) Existing
Facilities Cooling Water Intake Structures: Instrument, Pre-test, and
Implementation.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2402.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW.
    ICR status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
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 title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA
to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of
cooling water intake structures (CWIS) reflect the best technology
available (BTA) to protect aquatic organisms from being killed or
injured by impingement or entrainment. At question here is the
regulation of the existing steam electric and manufacturing facilities.
    Under Executive Order 12866, EPA is required to estimate the
potential benefits and costs to society of proposed rule options of
significant rules. To assess the importance of the ecological gains
from the section 316(b) regulation, EPA requests approval from the OMB
to conduct a stated preference survey. Data from the associated stated
preference survey will be used to estimate values (willingness to pay,
or WTP) derived by households for changes related to the reduction of
fish losses at CWIS, and to provide information to assist in the
interpretation and validation of survey responses. EPA has designed the
survey to provide data to support the following specific objectives:
[a] The estimation of the total values that individuals place on
preventing losses of fish and other aquatic organisms caused by 316(b)
facilities; [b] to understand how much individuals value preventing
fish losses,

increasing fish populations, and increasing commercial and recreational
catch rates; [c] to understand how such values depend on the current
baseline level of fish populations and fish losses, the scope of the
change in those measures, and the certainty level of the predictions;
and [d] to understand how such values vary with respect to individuals'
economic and demographic characteristics.
    The key elicitation questions ask respondents whether or not they
would vote for policies that would increase their cost of living, in
exchange for specified multi-attribute changes in [a] impingement and
entrainment losses of fish, [b] commercial fish populations, [c] long-
term populations of all fish, and [d] condition of aquatic ecosystems.
The respondents' stated preferences with respect to levels of
environmental goods and cost to households, when used in conjunction
with other information collected in the survey on the use of the
affected aquatic resources, household income, and other demographics,
can be analyzed statistically (using a mixed logit framework) to
estimate total WTP for the quantified environmental benefits of the
316(b) rulemaking. Data analysis and interpretation is grounded in a
standard random utility model.
    The welfare values that can be derived from this stated preference
survey along with those that are estimated apart from the survey effort
will offer insight into the composition of the value people place on
the 316(b) environmental impacts. WTP estimates derived from the survey
may overlap--to a potentially substantial extent--with estimates that
can be provided through some other methods. Therefore, particular care
will be given to avoid any possible double counting of values that
might be derived from alternative valuation methods.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5
minutes per telephone screening participant and 30 minutes per mail
survey respondent including the time necessary to complete and mail
back the questionnaire. 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 which have subsequently changed; 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.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents: Individuals from U.S. households.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 9,533 for
telephone screening and 2,288 for mailed questionnaires.
    Frequency of response: One-time response.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
One-time response.
    Estimated total burden hours: 1,938 hours.
    Estimated total costs: $39,583. EPA estimates that there will be no
capital and operating and maintenance cost burden to respondents.

    Dated: January 14, 2011.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-1257 Filed 1-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Dear White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC):
My name is Jerimiah Sanders, and I am the Field Environmental Officer for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Region 8. I have served in this position since June of 2016. Prior to my current position in HUD's Region 8 office, I was in HUD's Office of Environment and Energy in HUD Headquarters for nine years and focused on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related compliance as well. I appreciate President Biden, Vice President Harris, Secretary Fudge, and the rest of the Administration taking on these longstanding problems and issues, and I look forward to helping in any way I can. Over the years, my current and former colleagues and I have had concerns in the following areas. I submit these comments in my individual capacity.
HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 55.1(c)(1) prohibit approving financial assistance for housing in floodways after May 23, 1994. HUD has approved decades-long extensions for public housing in floodways after the introduction of this regulatory prohibition. HUD defines the "floodway" at 24 CFR 55.2(b)(5) as:
      [T]hat portion of the floodplain which is effective in carrying flow, where the flood hazard is generally the greatest, and where water depths and velocities are the highest. The term "floodway" as used here is consistent with "regulatory floodways" as identified by FEMA.
HUD considers public housing vouchers and other rental assistance to be "placed" at the time of the original contract for project-based vouchers or rental assistance. A "renewal" is not considered to be a "placement" of the voucher or an "approval" for purposes of the floodway prohibition. This means that projects may have additional contracts approved in a floodway for additional decades despite HUD's regulatory prohibition on assistance for housing in the floodway. This practice results in public housing residents and Federal investments being exposed to repetitive loss events. In addition to the tenants' personal public safety risks, the displacement of financially insecure individuals adds further stress on any disaster recovery. Furthermore, Federal agencies are tasked under EO 11988 and EO 13690 with providing leadership in floodplain management.
One specific example is Arbor Court in Houston, Texas. Arbor Court is in a floodway and received damage during the "2016 Tax Day Floods." Despite the tenants having to be rescued from the water, the previous damage, and HUD's prohibition on housing assistance in floodways, HUD renewed the contract after the flood for about $1.6 million per year. As stated in the New York Times, the Houston Chronicle, and linked below, Hurricane Harvey wiped out the first floor leaving many families displaced and others complaining of major problems, including mold, almost immediately after the Tax Day flood repairs were made. It is unclear whether HUD would have continued funding Arbor Court after Hurricane Harvey had the City of Houston not found the property to be structurally unsound. Structural issues are common for structures in floodways.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Some-Greenspoint-area-flood-victims-face-a-8338706.php
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/These-tenants-got-vouchers-to-leave-their-14276653.php
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/us/houston-flooding.html
https://www.khou.com/article/news/some-houstonians-still-waiting-for-government-assistance-3-years-after-tax-day-floods/285-5cfea252-8bec-4c3b-8695-980d0d3a7734
This situation should lead HUD to re-evaluate its policies. Should a new environmental review be performed after flood damage renders units unoccupiable or should re-evaluation of decades-old environmental reviews without public involvement be allowed? Should HUD prohibit contract renewals for properties in the regulatory floodway in accordance with HUD's floodway prohibition from 1994? Should HUD prohibit renewals in the floodway after a building receives flood damage?
As stated in a previous comment, HUD has 24 CFR Part 58. This regulation codifies a provision of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 at Section 104(g) that allows Tribal, state, and local governments to perform NEPA reviews for certain HUD programs. The only program office with any dedicated environmental monitoring is the Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD), which contains the NEPA office, the Office of Environment and Energy. As a member of this office, I routinely monitor grantees that were last monitored 15 to 18 years ago with significant issues, including floodplains and site contamination. Some programs, such as the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP) and all programs within the Office of Public Housing (OPH) including Project-based Vouchers under Section 8, do not have regular environmental monitoring. This means that none of these projects or public housing agencies are monitored at all unless they are a CPD entitlement community or otherwise receiving other CPD assistance from the state.
This means that thousands of public housing units go unmonitored, including those built prior to HUD's prohibition on housing assistance in floodways. This lack of monitoring and oversight was enshrined in a recent statutory provision. By exempting public housing agency activities from further environmental review, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act effectively "grandfathers" public housing assistance from HUD in floodways in perpetuity. The floodway projects would have been stopped years ago had HUD honored its stated regulatory intention  -  as stated to both the public and CEQ  -  to monitor grantees every three years. The environmental monitoring did not occur, and as a result, the assistance continues. HUD's intention to monitor every three years is stated at 24 CFR 58.77(d)(1). The exemption in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act is linked below. Could this exemption benefit from a provision banning assistance in floodways and Coastal High Hazard Areas (V Zones)?
Small PHA Exemption Regulatory Notice: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-04004.pdf?utm_campaign=pi+subscription+mailing+list&utm_source=federalregister.gov&utm_medium=email
Thank you for your time and expertise. I am very grateful for this opportunity to offer these comments and this outlet to address environmental justice concerns throughout the country.
Sincerely,
Jerimiah Sanders


Note to Reader

Request for Additional Information and Risk Management Suggestions for
the

Reregistration of Aldicarb

Phase 5 Public Comment Period

November 8, 2006

Dear Reader:

The purpose of this document is to summarize the current human health
and ecological risk picture for aldicarb and solicit risk management
suggestions.  The revised human health and ecological risk assessments
will be released for a 60-day public comment period, running from
November 15, 2006 to January 16, 2007.

Dietary Risks

Under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), EPA is required to
ensure that all food and drinking water risks for a given pesticide fit
within the pesticide’s “risk cup”.  The risk cup can be simply
defined as the “acceptable level of exposure” to an individual from
a pesticide, on an acute (i.e., one day) or chronic (i.e., long term)
basis.  When dietary risks are of concern, EPA takes steps to address
the risks to ensure food safety.

The Agency has determined that the estimated acute dietary exposure and
risk from food only does not exceed EPA’s level of concern (i.e., less
than 100 % of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD)) for the general
U.S. population or any population subgroup.  The estimated dietary risk
for the highest exposed population subgroup, children 1-2 years of age,
at the 99.9th percentile of exposure is 78% of the aPAD. For the general
U.S. population, the dietary risk is 37% of the aPAD.  EPA conducted
additional analyses to determine which food or food forms made the
greatest contribution to dietary risk.  For all population subgroups,
aldicarb residues in potatoes were the most significant source of
dietary exposure.

While the dietary exposure and risk from aldicarb residues in food alone
is not of concern, the aggregate exposures and risks from food and
drinking water from rural well ground water sources suggest a risk
concern (139-147% aPAD) for infants less than one year of age only in
peanut/ cotton growing regions in the southern coastal plain (Alabama,
Georgia, South Carolina).  However, these risks diminish as the distance
increases between aldicarb-treated fields and drinking water wells.  The
concerns for drinking water exposure are confined to areas where high
leaching potential soils occur over shallow, acidic ground water.  The
acute risk assessment takes into account that the
cholinesterase-inhibition effects for aldicarb decrease as a function of
the amount of time elapsed after the food or water is consumed, and that
people eat food at various times throughout the day allowing for
recovery of cholinesterase activity between eating events.

While the aggregate exposure and risk from food and drinking water from
private, rural well ground water sources is a concern for vulnerable
subpopulations, the Agency has determined that aggregate exposure and
risk from food and drinking water from community surface and ground
water sources is not a risk concern for any population subgroup.

Residential Risks

As there are no residential uses of aldicarb, the Agency did not include
residential risks in its aggregate assessment of this chemical.

Occupational Risks

The occupational risk assessment for aldicarb is based on potential
exposure to agricultural workers during loading and application of
granular products.  Aldicarb is applied early in the growing season, and
labels require immediate soil incorporation of granules.
Postapplication exposures are not expected for workers, so a
quantitative postapplication risk assessment has not been conducted.

Unlike with some pesticides, there is aldicarb-specific worker exposure
data that mirrors how aldicarb is packaged, handled, and used in
agriculture.  This data was used along with an additional study to
conduct the occupational risk assessment for aldicarb. For the
occupational assessment using the various worker exposure data, risks
were not of concern for loader or applicator exposure scenarios.

Human Studies Review Board

As required by EPA’s Human Subjects Protections Rule of 2006, the
Agency’s Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) reviewed the aldicarb human
oral study used in the human health risk assessment.  For additional
information relating to the HSRB’s determination for the
aldicarb-specific study, please refer to EPA’s website at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/"  http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ .

Ecological Risks

The ecological risk assessment is based on maximum rates and average
usage rates of aldicarb.  Using multiple lines of evidence (such as use
scenarios, average or “typical” application rates, registrant
submitted toxicity studies, open literature data, and field monitoring
data), aldicarb labeled uses pose acute risk (mortality) concerns to
birds, mammals, and aquatic organisms, as well as acute and chronic
reproductive concerns in fish and aquatic invertebrates.  The Agency is
currently working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service to gather information on listed species and
their habitats, to support endangered species effect determinations
associated with registered aldicarb uses.

Terrestrial Organisms

For terrestrial organisms, acute risk and acute endangered species
levels of concern for birds and mammals are exceeded for all target
crops at both maximum allowed label rates and average use rates.  Acute
levels of concern are consistently exceeded by a factor of greater than
100x and are frequently exceeded by more than 1000x.  Although aldicarb
labels require immediate soil incorporation, granules left exposed on
the surface appear to be the main source of exposure.  In addition,
other sources such as residues taken up by plants and contaminated
earthworms may also serve as a means of exposure.

Aquatic Organisms

For aquatic organisms there are acute risks for freshwater and
estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates for all of the registered uses
except the use on potatoes.  The chronic level of concern is exceeded
for freshwater invertebrates (reproductive effects) and estuarine/marine
invertebrates (average number of offspring) for all of the registered
uses.  Based on reproductive effects, the chronic level of concern is
also exceeded for freshwater fish (larval and juvenile survival) for
soybean, cotton, and pecan use patterns and for estuarine/marine fish
for all crop scenarios.

Cumulative Risk

The Agency has determined that N-methyl carbamate pesticides, such as
aldicarb, should be considered as a Common Mechanism Group due to their
ability to inhibit acetylcholinesterase.  A cumulative risk assessment
for this Common Mechanism Group, including aldicarb, will be finalized
once the individual assessment of aldicarb is complete.  This more
comprehensive assessment of the N-methyl carbamate group may result in
additional measures to mitigate potential risk from the use of aldicarb.

Solicitation for Benefits Information and Risk Management Suggestions

At this time, the dietary (food only) and occupational risks from
aldicarb are not of concern for the registered uses.  However, there are
aggregate food and water dietary risks of concern in peanut/cotton
growing regions in the southern coastal plain, as well as nationwide
ecological risks of concern.

The Agency has performed preliminary impact analyses to identify
available alternatives for the uses of aldicarb that appear to pose the
highest risks (see “Preliminary Impact Analysis for Aldicarb on
Potatoes”, “Preliminary Impact Analysis for Aldicarb on Major Citrus
Crops”, and “Impact Analysis for Aldicarb on Cotton”).  Additional
alternatives analyses have also been performed for crops with the
highest use of aldicarb (see “Alternatives Analysis for Sugar
Beets”, “Analysis for Aldicarb on Peanuts”, and “Alternatives
Assessment for Aldicarb”).

It is important to note that FQPA does not allow for the consideration
of benefits when conducting dietary assessments; therefore, benefits
analyses play an important role in only non-dietary considerations, such
as ecological and worker risks.  For the crops cited above, impact and
alternative analyses are available in the aldicarb docket.  These
analyses show that there are not adequate alternatives available for
aldicarb use on potatoes and citrus.  Furthermore, though there are
effective alternatives for cotton, peanuts, and sugar beets, these
alternatives may have considerably higher costs since multiple chemicals
may be needed to control multiple pests currently controlled by aldicarb
alone.

At this time, the Agency has begun to identify some viable options for
effectively mitigating the ground water and ecological risks from
aldicarb.  In part, the questions below seek feedback from the public on
potential mitigation options in areas where the risk assessments show
concerns; however, EPA is also soliciting input from interested
stakeholders on benefits information

(i.e., critical uses of aldicarb and impacts to growers from the loss of
aldicarb). If you would like to provide this type of input, please
submit your comments directly to the aldicarb docket.

The Agency is providing the following questions to help the public in
preparing comments:

(1) Results of the drinking water dietary assessment suggest that there
are risks to infants less than one year of age for the aldicarb use on
peanuts/cotton in the southern coastal plain with 300 ft. setbacks from
drinking water wells.  In order to make the FQPA safety finding, OPP
believes one option is to extend setbacks to 500 feet.   What effect
would this have on peanut and cotton farmers, and are there other
options?

(2) What pests do you feel aldicarb is critical in controlling on the
following crops: sweet potato, dry beans, sorghum, soybeans, sugarcane,
seed alfalfa, field grown ornamentals, tobacco, and coffee?

(3) What alternatives, if any, do you believe are available to replace
aldicarb use on sweet potato, dry beans, sorghum, soybeans, sugarcane,
seed alfalfa, field grown ornamentals, tobacco, and coffee?

(4) What percentage of the use are the aldicarb post-emergence
applications, and is aldicarb only applied post emergence as a side
dress application?

(5) Against which pests and on which crops is the aldicarb
post-emergence side dress application used, and how critical is this
use?

(6) What alternatives, if any, do you believe are available for the
post-emergence side-dress use and how effective do you believe these
alternatives to be?

(7) What percentage of the use, if at all, are the broadcast and/or
banded applications?

(8) Against which pests and on which crops, if any, are broadcast and/or
banded applications being used?

(9) It is the Agency’s understanding that positive displacement
application equipment is used in the majority of aldicarb applications
to potatoes.  What percentage of aldicarb applications involves use of
positive displacement equipment on other crops?

(10) Is positive displacement application equipment readily available
and affordable for use on all crops?

11) What are the mitigation options that best address the risks of
concern identified in the risk assessments?

Please provide as much detail and documentation in your comments as
possible so that the Agency is fully informed in its decision-making.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register: January 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 4623-4625]
[DOCID:fr28ja10-123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket ID. FMCSA-2009-0303]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 27 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the prescribed vision standard. The Agency has concluded that granting
these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective January 28, 2010. The exemptions
expire on January 30, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-

addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments online.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://Docketsinfo.dot.gov.

Background

    On November 19, 2009, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public 74 FR 60022). That notice listed 27 applicants' case
histories. The 27 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 27 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision standard,
but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation
and demonstrated their ability to drive safely.
    The 27 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this
category. They are unable to meet the vision standard in one eye for
various reasons, including amblyopia, optic nerve hyperplasia,
retinopathy of prematurity, macular hole, central serous retinopathy,
prosthesis, macular degeneration, cataract, extropia, diabetic
retinopathy, aphakia, and loss of vision due to trauma. In most cases,
their eye conditions were not recently developed. All but 7 of the
applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had
them since childhood. The 7 individuals who sustained their vision
conditions as adults have had them for periods ranging from 13 to 44
years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All these applicants satisfied the testing standards for their
State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle,
with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State. While
possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 27 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce.
    They have driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging
from 3 to 38 years. In the past 3 years, three of the drivers had
convictions for traffic violations and one of the drivers was involved
in a crash.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the November 19, 2009
notice (74 FR 60022).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision,
but also their driving records and experience with the vision
deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision standard, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years.
    Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at docket number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An

Application of Multiple Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,''
Journal of the American Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964
California Driver Record Study prepared by the California Department of
Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall crash predictor for both
concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the number of single
convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the
experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their experiences in
the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 27 applicants, one of the applicants had a traffic violation for
speeding, one of the applicants had a traffic violation for failure to
obey a traffic sign and another had a traffic violation for failure to
yield the right of way to another vehicle, and one applicant was
involved in a crash. The applicants achieved this record of safety
while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the
likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate
their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their
vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA
concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the
future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision standard in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 27 applicants listed in the notice of
November 19, 2009 (74 FR 60022).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 27 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of
the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 27 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Teddy S. Bioni, John K. Butler, James J. Coffield, Roy E.
Crayne, Ralph G. DeBardi, James A. DuBay, Chad D. Grose, Donald E.
Halvorson, Gerald Harrison, Roger D. Kool, Curtis M. Lawless, Michael
E. Lindquist, Philip J.C. Locke, Travis J. Luce, Cameron S. McMillen,
Carl L. Miles, Rashawn L. Morris, Brian T. Nelson, James C. New, Thomas
E. O'Compo, Christopher M. Rivera, Richard J. Robb, Larry L. Sapp,
Temesgn H. Teklezig, Robert E. Whitney, Robert D. Williams, and James
M. Wood from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to
the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315. If the exemption is
still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply
to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.

    Issued on: January 11, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-1766 Filed 1-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P