[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36594-36598]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16189]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0547]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Survey on the
Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected Retail and
Foodservice Facility Types

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by August
29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to [email protected]. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0744.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Survey on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected
Retail and Foodservice Facility Types

OMB Control Number 0910-0744--Extension

I. Background

    From 1998 to 2008, FDA's National Retail Food Team conducted a
study to measure trends in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk
factors, preparation practices, and employee behaviors most commonly
reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as
contributing factors to foodborne illness outbreaks at the retail
level. Specifically, data was collected by FDA Specialists in retail
and foodservice establishments at 5-year intervals (1998, 2003, and
2008) to observe and document trends in the occurrence of the following
foodborne illness risk factors:
     Food from Unsafe Sources,
     Poor Personal Hygiene,
     Inadequate Cooking,
     Improper Holding/Time and Temperature, and
     Contaminated Equipment/Cross-Contamination.
    FDA developed reports summarizing the findings for each of the
three data collection periods (1998, 2003, and 2008) (Refs. 1 to 3).
Data from all three data collection periods were analyzed to detect
trends in improvement or regression over time and to determine whether
progress had been made toward the goal of reducing the occurrence of
foodborne illness risk factors in selected retail and foodservice
facility types (Ref. 4).
    Using this 10-year survey as a foundation, in 2013 to 2014 FDA
initiated a new study in full service and fast food restaurants. This
study will span 10 years with a data collection currently being
conducted in 2017 to 2018 and another data collection planned for 2021
to 2022 (the subject of this information collection request extension).

    Table 1--Description of the Facility Types Included in the Survey
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Facility type                         Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Service Restaurants.....  A restaurant where customers place their
                                order at their table, are served their
                                meal at the table, receive the service
                                of the wait staff, and pay at the end of
                                the meal.
Fast Food Restaurants........  A restaurant that is not a full service
                                restaurant. This includes restaurants
                                commonly referred to as quick service
                                restaurants and fast casual restaurants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the study is to:
     Assist FDA with developing retail food safety initiatives
and policies focused on the control of foodborne illness risk factors;
     Identify retail food safety work plan priorities and
allocate resources to enhance retail food safety nationwide;
     Track changes in the occurrence of foodborne illness risk
factors in retail and foodservice establishments over time; and
     Inform recommendations to the retail and foodservice
industry and State, local, tribal, and territorial regulatory
professionals on reducing the occurrence of foodborne illness risk
factors.
    The statutory basis for FDA conducting this study is derived from
the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 243, section
311(a)). Responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the PHS Act
relative to food protection was transferred to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs in 1968 (21 CFR 5.10(a)(2) and (4)). Additionally, the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.)
and the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535) require FDA to provide assistance
to other Federal, State, and local government bodies.
    The objectives of the study are to:
     Identify the least and most often occurring foodborne
illness risk factors and food safety behaviors/practices in retail and
foodservice facility types during each data collection period;
     Track improvement and/or regression trends in the
occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors during the 10-year study
period;
     Examine potential correlations between operational
characteristics of food establishments and the control of foodborne
illness risk factors;
     Examine potential correlations between elements within
regulatory retail food protection programs and the control of foodborne
illness risk factors; and
     Determine the extent to which food safety management
systems and the presence of a certified food protection manager impact
the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors.
    The methodology to be used for this information collection is
described as follows. To obtain a sufficient number of observations to
conduct statistically significant analysis, FDA will conduct
approximately 400 data collections in each facility type. This sample
size has been calculated to provide for sufficient observations to be
95 percent confident that the compliance percentage is within 5 percent
of the true compliance percentage.
    A geographical information system database containing a listing of
businesses throughout the United States provides the establishment
inventory for the data collections. FDA samples establishments from the
inventory based on the descriptions in table 1. FDA does not intend to
sample operations that handle only prepackaged food items or conduct
low-risk food preparation activities. The ``FDA Food Code'' contains a
grouping of establishments by risk, based on the type of food
preparation that is normally conducted within the operation (Ref. 5).
The intent is to sample establishments that fall under risk categories
2 through 4.
    FDA has approximately 25 Retail Food Specialists (Specialists) who
serve as the data collectors for the 10-year study. The Specialists are
geographically dispersed throughout the United States and possess
technical expertise in retail food safety and a solid understanding of
the operations within each of the facility types to be surveyed. The
Specialists are also standardized by FDA's Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition personnel in the application and interpretation of
the FDA Food Code (Ref. 5).
    Sampling zones have been established that are equal to the 150-mile
radius around a Specialist's home location. The sample is selected
randomly from among all eligible establishments located within these
sampling zones. The Specialists are generally located in major
metropolitan areas (i.e., population centers) across the contiguous
United States. Population centers usually contain a large concentration
of the establishments FDA intends to sample. Sampling from the 150-mile
radius sampling zones around the Specialists' home locations provides
three advantages to the study:
    1. It provides a cross section of urban and rural areas from which
to sample the eligible establishments.
    2. It represents a mix of small, medium, and large regulatory
entities having jurisdiction over the eligible establishments.
    3. It reduces overnight travel and therefore reduces travel costs
incurred by the Agency to collect data.
    The sample for each data collection period is evenly distributed
among Specialists. Given that participation in the study by industry is
voluntary and the status of any given randomly selected establishment
is subject to change, substitute establishments have been selected for
each Specialist for cases where the restaurant facility is
misclassified, closed, or otherwise unavailable, unable, or unwilling
to participate.
    Prior to conducting the data collection, Specialists contact the
State or local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for
conducting retail food inspections for the selected establishment. The
Specialist verifies with the jurisdiction that the facility has been
properly classified for the purposes of the study and is still in
operation. The Specialist ascertains whether the selected facility is
under legal notice from the State or local regulatory authority. If the
selected facility is under legal notice, the Specialist will not
conduct a data collection, and a substitute establishment will be used.
An invitation is extended to the State or local regulatory authority to
accompany the Specialist on the data collection visit.
    A standard form is used by the Specialists during each data
collection. The form is divided into three sections: Section 1--
``Establishment Information''; Section 2--``Regulatory Authority
Information''; and Section 3--``Foodborne Illness Risk Factor and Food
Safety Management System Assessment.'' The information in Section 1--
``Establishment Information'' of the form is obtained during an
interview with the establishment owner or person in charge by the
Specialist and includes a standard set of questions.
    The information in Section 2--``Regulatory Authority Information''
is

obtained during an interview with the program director of the State or
local jurisdiction that has regulatory responsibility for conducting
inspections for the selected establishment. Section 3 includes three
parts: Part A for tabulating the Specialists' observations of the food
employees' behaviors and practices in limiting contamination,
proliferation, and survival of food safety hazards; Part B for
assessing the food safety management system being implemented by the
facility; and Part C for assessing the frequency and extent of food
employee hand washing. The information in Part A is collected from the
Specialists' direct observations of food employee behaviors and
practices. Infrequent, nonstandard questions may be asked by the
Specialists if clarification is needed on the food safety procedure or
practice being observed. The information in Part B is collected by
making direct observations and asking followup questions of facility
management to obtain information on the extent to which the food
establishment has developed and implemented food safety management
systems. The information in Part C is collected by making direct
observations of food employee hand washing. No questions are asked in
the completion of Section 3, Part C of the form.
    FDA collects the following information associated with the
establishment's identity: Establishment name, street address, city,
state, zip code, county, industry segment, and facility type. The
establishment identifying information is collected to ensure the data
collections are not duplicative. Other information related to the
nature of the operation, such as seating capacity and number of
employees per shift, is also collected. Data will be consolidated and
reported in a manner that does not reveal the identity of any
establishment included in the study.
    FDA has collaborated with the Food Protection and Defense Institute
to develop a web-based platform in FoodSHIELD to collect, store, and
analyze data for the Retail Risk Factor Study. This platform is
accessible to State, local, territorial, and tribal regulatory
jurisdictions to collect data relevant to their own risk factor
studies. For the 2015 to 2016 data collection, FDA piloted the use of
hand-held technology for capturing the data onsite during the data
collection visits. The tablets that were made available for the data
collections were part of a broader Agency initiative focused on
internal uses of hand-held technology. The tablets provided for the
data collection presented several technical and logistical challenges
and increased the time burden associated with the data collection as
compared to the manual entry of data collections. FDA continues to
assess the feasibility for fully incorporating use of hand-held
technology in subsequent data collections during the 10-year study
period.
    When a data collector is assigned a specific establishment, he or
she conducts the data collection and enters the information into the
web-based data platform. The interface will support the manual entering
of data, as well as the ability to directly enter information in the
database via a web browser.
    The burden for the 2021 to 2022 data collection is as follows. For
each data collection, the respondents will include: (1) The person in
charge of the selected facility (whether it be a fast food or full
service restaurant) and (2) the program director (or designated
individual) of the respective regulatory authority. To provide the
sufficient number of observations needed to conduct a statistically
significant analysis of the data, FDA has determined that 400 data
collections will be required in each of the two restaurant facility
types. Therefore, the total number of responses will be 1,600 (400 data
collections x 2 facility types x 2 respondents per data collection).
    The burden associated with the completion of Sections 1 and 3 of
the form is specific to the persons in charge of the selected
facilities. It includes the time it will take the person in charge to
accompany the data collector during the site visit and answer the data
collector's questions. The burden related to the completion of Section
2 of the form is specific to the program directors (or designated
individuals) of the respective regulatory authorities. It includes the
time it will take to answer the data collectors' questions and is the
same regardless of the facility type.
    In the Federal Register of February 7, 2018 (83 FR 5433), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. FDA received two comments.
    (Comment 1) We received comments related to FDA's authority for
collaboration with State and local governments regarding food safety at
the retail level.
    (Response 1) The statutory basis for FDA conducting this survey is
the PHS Act, which requires that FDA provide assistance to State and
local governments relative to the prevention and suppression of
communicable diseases. Responsibility for carrying out the provisions
of the PHS Act relative to food protection was transferred to the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs in 1968 (21 CFR 5.10(a)(2) and (4)).
Additionally, the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) and the Economy Act
(31 U.S.C. 1535) require FDA to provide assistance to other Federal,
State, and local government bodies.
    (Comment 2) The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the Academy)
commented that they support the proposed information collection for the
survey on the occurrence of foodborne illness risk factors in various
settings. The Academy provided comments pertaining to the following
general areas of the study:
    a. Question as to whether 90 minutes is adequate for surveying
larger facilities.
    b. Request FDA evaluate the impact of conducting surveys during
non-peak hours of operation.
    c. Suggest that the use of gloves is not adequately addressed in
the survey.
    d. Recommend adding a food allergy component.
    e. Encourage continued efforts to simplify and standardize
expiration dates.
    Related to foodservice operations at the retail level, the Academy
provided the following comments:
    a. Suggest that FDA consider conducting the survey by using local
inspectors who already inspect facilities for other purposes.
    b. Suggest that educational efforts should be culturally guided,
provided in multiple languages, and include photos or illustrations to
facilitate remediation.
    c. FDA consider modifying the survey to account for new foods and
new means of conveying food.
    (Response 2) FDA thanks the submitter for their comments and
appreciates their support. Regarding general areas of the study, FDA
provides the following responses:
    a. The current 10-year study estimates 90 minutes as the average
time needed to adequately collect necessary information, taking into
account both small and large facilities. This average time is
consistent with the amount of time burden estimated for the previous
data collection periods and provides a sufficient timeframe to observe
food safety practices and procedures that are the focus of the study.
    b. Based on the methodology of the study, the information
collection is performed during hours of operation of the randomly
selected facility. Data collections are scheduled at times that provide
the best opportunity to observe food preparation activities.

    c. Information collection related to handwashing and no bare hand
contact with ready to eat foods, which may include use of gloves, is
based on assessment of observations against the most current addition
of the FDA Model Food Code. Provisions of the FDA Food Code identify
when handwashing and no bare hand contact with ready to eat food are
required during food preparation and service. The current FDA Food Code
does not recognize the use of hand antiseptics in lieu of handwashing
during food preparation and service.
    d. The study is collecting information regarding the knowledge of
the person in charge related to food allergens and training of food
service employees on allergy awareness as it relates to their assigned
duties in their facility.
    e. The scope of this data collection focuses on foodborne illness
risk factors and does not include assessment of expiration dates of
manufactured foods as part of this research assessment.
    Related to foodservice operations at the retail level, FDA provides
the following responses:
    a. This type of research requires a standardized design and
methodology to ensure that the occurrences of the foodborne illness
risk factors are uniformly assessed. Retail Food Specialists are
standardized by Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and have a
strong working knowledge of retail food industry. State and local
regulators are encouraged to accompany the data collectors during the
data collection.
    b. The research from this study facilitates the development of
culturally guided, multi-language education outreach materials that can
be shared with regulatory and industry partners.
    c. The study design accounts for a variety of food conveyances in
the retail food setting. The study includes four major segments of the
retail and foodservice industries that account for over a million
varied and diverse types of operations in the United States:

 Restaurants
 Healthcare Facilities
 Schools (K-12)
 Retail Food Stores

    To calculate the estimate of the hours per response, FDA will use
the average data collection duration for the same facility types during
the 2013 to 2014 data collection. FDA estimates that it will take the
persons in charge of full service restaurants and fast food restaurants
104 minutes (1.73 hours) and 82 minutes (1.36 hours), respectively, to
accompany the data collectors while they complete Sections 1 and 3 of
the form. In comparison, for the 2013 to 2014 data collection, the
burden estimate was 106 minutes (1.76 hours) in full service
restaurants and 73 minutes (1.21 hours) in fast food restaurants. FDA
estimates that it will take the program director (or designated
individual) of the respective regulatory authority 30 minutes (0.5
hours) to answer the questions related to Section 2 of the form. This
burden estimate is unchanged from the last data collection. Hence, the
total burden estimate for a data collection in a full service
restaurant, including the responses of both the program director and
the person in charge, is 134 minutes (104 + 30) (2.23 hours). The total
burden estimate for a data collection in a fast food restaurant,
including the responses of both the program director and the person in
charge, is 112 minutes (82 + 30) (1.86 hours).
    Based on the number of entry refusals from the 2013 to 2014
baseline data collection, we estimate a refusal rate of 2 percent for
the data collections within restaurant facility types. The estimate of
the time per non-respondent is 5 minutes (0.08 hours) for the person in
charge to listen to the purpose of the visit and provide a verbal
refusal of entry.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 2--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of                              Number of
                                      Number of    responses      Total      Number of    responses      Total        Average burden per
              Activity               respondents      per         annual        non-       per non-   annual non-          response          Total hours
                                                   respondent   responses   respondents   respondent   responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021-2022 Data Collection (Fast              400            1          400  ...........  ...........  ...........  1.36....................          544
 Food Restaurants)--Completion of
 Sections 1 and 3.
2021-2022 Data Collection (Full              400            1          400  ...........  ...........  ...........  1.73....................          692
 Service Restaurants)--Completion
 of Sections 1 and 3.
2021-2022 Data Collection-                   800            1          800  ...........  ...........  ...........  0.5 (30 minutes)........          400
 Completion of Section 2--All
 Facility Types.
2021-2022 Data Collection-Entry      ...........  ...........  ...........           16            1           16  0.08 (5 minutes)........         1.28
 Refusals--All Facility Types.
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Hours....................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ........................     1,637.28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1.\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    The burden for this information collection has not changed since
the last OMB approval.

II. References

    The following references are on display in the Dockets Management
Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and are available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, they are also
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has
verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes
in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.

1. ``Report of the FDA Retail Food Program Database of Foodborne
Illness Risk Factors'' (2000). Available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170406023019/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/UCM123546.pdf.
2. ``FDA Report on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors
in Selected Institutional Foodservice, Restaurant, and Retail Food
Store Facility Types (2004).'' Available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170406023011/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessRiskFactorReduction/UCM423850.pdf.
3. ``FDA Report on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors
in Selected Institutional Foodservice, Restaurant, and Retail Food
Store Facility Types (2009).'' Available at: https://
wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170406023004/https://www.fda.gov/Food/
GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/

FoodborneIllnessRiskFactorReduction/ucm224321.htm.
4. FDA National Retail Food Team. ``FDA Trend Analysis Report on the
Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Selected
Institutional Foodservice, Restaurant, and Retail Food Store
Facility Types (1998-2008).'' Available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170406022950/https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodborneIllnessRiskFactorReduction/ucm223293.htm.
5. ``FDA Food Code.'' Available at: https://www.fda.gov/FoodCode.

    Dated: July 24, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-16189 Filed 7-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21091-21093]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07212]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0039; Airspace Docket No. 23-AEA-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Altoona, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace at Altoona, PA. This
action is the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Revloc very high frequency omnidirectional range
(VOR) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operating Network (MON)
Program. The name of the airport is also being

updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, June 15, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it amends the Class E surface airspace and the Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Altoona/
Blair County Airport, Altoona, PA, to support instrument flight rule
operations at this airport.

History

    The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2023-0039 in the
Federal Register (88 FR 8378; February 9, 2023), amending the Class E
airspace at Altoona, PA. Interested parties were invited to participate
in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the
proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and
6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual
basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA
Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022 and effective September 15,
2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will be published
in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by:
    Modifying the Class E surface airspace to within a 9.3-mile
(increased from a 4.7-mile) radius of Altoona/Blair County Airport,
Altoona, PA; removing the extension northeast of the airport as it is
no longer required; and updating the name (previously Altoona-Blair
County Airport) of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database;
    And modifying the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to within an 11.8-mile (increased from an 11.2-mile)
radius of Altoona/Blair County Airport; adding an extension 2 miles
each side of the 196[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the
11.8-mile radius to 12 miles south of the airport; and updating the
name (previously Altoona-Blair County Airport) of the airport to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Revloc VOR, which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at this airport, as part of
the VOR MON Program, and will support instrument flight rule operations
at this airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AEA PA E2 Altoona, PA [Amended]

Altoona/Blair County Airport, PA
    (Lat. 40[deg]17'47'' N, long. 78[deg]19'12'' W)

    Within a 9.3-mile radius of Altoona/Blair County Airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA PA E5 Altoona, PA [Amended]

Altoona/Blair County Airport, PA
    (Lat. 40[deg]17'47'' N, long. 78[deg]19'12'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 11.8-mile radius of Altoona/Blair County Airport; and
within 2 miles each side of the 196[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 11.8-mile radius to 12 miles south of the
airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 3, 2023.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-07212 Filed 4-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES,

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

Date:		07-JUL-2009

Subject:	Fenpyroximate in/on Fruiting Vegetable (Crop Group 8), Melon
(Crop Subgroup 9A), Cucumber, and Okra.  Response to Risk Assessment 1
Branch (RAB1) Review of 17-MAR-2009 (DP# 354703).

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

PC Code:  129131	DP Barcodes:  D364908, D366715

Decision No.:  394796	Registration Nos.:  71711-4, 71711-19

Petition No.:  8E7365	Regulatory Action:  Amended Sec. 3 Registration

Risk Assessment Type:  NA	Case No.:  NA

TXR No.:  NA	CAS No.:  134098-61-6 (E-isomer)

MRID Nos.:  4773601, 4773602, 4773603, 47771301, 47771302, 47790601	40
CFR:  §180.566

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 From:		George F. Kramer, Ph.D., Chemist

		RAB1/Health Effects Division (HED) (7509P)

Through:	Dana M. Vogel, Branch Chief

		RAB1/HED (7509P)

To:		Sidney Jackson/Barbara Madden, PM Team 05

		Registration Division (RD) (7505P)

Executive Summary

Fenpyroximate is a contact insecticide/miticide used for the control of
leafhoppers, mealybugs, and mites.  U.S. registrations are currently
held by Nichino America, Inc. and include a 0.42 lb/gal (5%)
suspension-concentrate (SC; equivalent to a flowable-concentrate, FlC)
formulation (Akari® 5SC Miticide - Insecticide, EPA Reg. No. 71711-4),
registered for nonfood use on ornamental, floral, and foliage crops, and
a 0.40 lb/gal (5%) emulsifiable-concentrate (EC) formulation (FujiMite®
5 EC Miticide/Insecticide; EPA Reg. No. 71711-19) registered for foliar
application to pome fruit, cotton, grapes, and nonbearing deciduous
fruit and nut trees and vines.

Data in support of this petition were originally reviewed by HED under
DP# 354703 (3/17/09, G. Kramer).  The current amendment addresses only
the deficiencies pertaining to OPPTS 860.1340 Residue Analytical Methods
identified in this review.

Remaining Residue Chemistry Deficiencies Pertaining to OPPTS 860.1340
Residue Analytical Methods

None

Regulatory Recommendations

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Pending submission of revised Sections B and F
(see Memo, G. Kramer, DP# 354703; 3/17/09), there are no residue
chemistry issues that would preclude granting unconditional
registrations for this insecticide on fruiting vegetables (crop group
8), okra, melon subgroup 9A, and cucumber, and the establishment of
permanent tolerances for the combined residues of fenpyroximate and its
Z-isomer as follows:

Vegetable, fruiting, group 8	0.20 ppm

Okra	0.20 ppm

Melon, subgroup 9A	0.10 ppm

Cucumber	0.10 ppm

A risk assessment was previously completed for these proposed uses (DP#
285051; 8/26/03, M. Clock-Rust, et al.).

DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS

860.1340 Residue Analytical Methods

Deficiency - 860.1340 Residue Analytical Method - Plant Commodities
(from Memo, G. Kramer, DP# 354703; 3/17/09)

(	The available enforcement analytical method data should be upgraded to
support the expanded uses of fenpyroximate proposed under the current
petition.  The method should be rewritten to include instructions for
the analysis of fruiting vegetable, okra, melon, and cucumber.

Petitioner's Response:  Submission of MRID 47790601 “Revision 1 to
Quantitation of Fenpyroximate Residues in Raw Agricultural and Processed
Commodities: Analytical Protocol” which includes instructions for
peppers, cantaloupe, and cucumber.

HED's Conclusion:  This now deficiency is resolved.

Deficiency - 860.1340 Residue Analytical Method - Plant Commodities
(from Memo, G. Kramer, DP# 354703; 3/17/09)

(	The requirement for an interference study demonstrating the
specificity of the enforcement method, or a specific confirmatory method
(e.g., use of MS detection) remains outstanding.  If the petitioner can
validate LC/MS/MS Method AJW/03/01 on the registered crops and the crops
addressed in this petition, then this requirement will be fulfilled.

Petitioner's Response:  MRID 4773601 is a validation study of Method
AJW/03/1 which demonstrates acceptable recoveries in a variety of
commodities (apple, strawberry, peach, pear, plum, bean, cucumber,
pepper, and tomato) at the LOQ (0.01 ppm).

HED's Conclusion:  This deficiency is resolved.  Submission of Method
AJW/03/1 fulfills the requirement for a confirmatory method.

Deficiency - 860.1340 Residue Analytical Method - Plant Commodities
(from Memo, G. Kramer, DP# 354703; 3/17/09)

(	Clarifications are required for the analytical methods used for pepper
and cantaloupe.  Due to the potential for isomerization between
fenpyroximate and its Z-isomer in peppers and cantaloupes, the results
were reported as combined residues (with both analytes determined as the
Z-isomer).  Although the method used for peppers and cantaloupes did not
differ significantly in the procedure from the original enforcement
analytical method, the petitioner stated that for analysis of the
subject commodities, fenpyroximate was converted to the Z-isomer in the
injector area of the gas chromatograph; however, it is noted that this
conversion was not always complete, as shown by the presence of double
peaks in several of the sample chromatograms.  The petitioner should
provide further explanation for this observation, addressing whether
conversion to the Z isomer is specific to certain crop commodities such
as cantaloupe and pepper or was the result of the instrument conditions
used for analysis of subject commodity samples.

Petitioner's Response:  The statements concerning fenpyroximate being
converted to the Z-isomer in the injector area of the gas chromatograph
are erroneous.  The statements should have instructed the analyst to
calculate total fenpyroximate as the sum of the two peaks (fenpyroximate
and the Z-isomer).  MRIDs 4773602 (pepper) and 4773603 (cantaloupe) are
rewrites of the residue studies which include the corrected language.

HED's Conclusion:  This deficiency is resolved.

cc:  G. Kramer (RAB1)

RDI:  RAB1 Chemists (7/1/09)

G.F. Kramer:S10781:PY-S:(703)305-5079:7509P:RAB1

Template Version November 2003

Fenpyroximate	Response to Previous HED Review	DP# D338871

Page   PAGE  3  of   NUMPAGES  3

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  3


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62573-62574]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26354]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0751; FRL-9985-61]

Interim Registration Review Decisions and Case Closures for
Several Pesticides; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's interim
registration review decision for the following chemicals: Acibenzolar-
s-methyl, Aspergillus flavus, Asulam, Bacillus licheniformis strain
SB3086, Chloroxylenol, Copper compounds, Dried Fermentation Solids and
Solubles of Myrothecium verrucaria, EPTC, Ethylene, Fludioxonil, Formic
Acid, Methyl Nonyl Ketone, Niclosamide, N\6\-Benzyladenine, Potassium
Silicate, Propamocarb hydrochloride, Putrescent Whole Egg Solids,
Sodium carbonate and TFM. It also announces the case closure for Bis
(bromoacetoxy)-2-butene (BBAB) (Case 3030, Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2014-0799) because the last U.S. registrations for these pesticides
have been canceled.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the pesticide specific contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information, contact: The
Chemical Review Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the
Table in Unit IV.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Dana Friedman, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 347-8827; email address: [email protected].

II. Background

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed interim decisions for all pesticides listed in
the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in the Table in Unit IV pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's interim registration review decisions for the pesticides shown
in the following table. The interim registration review decisions are
supported by rationales included in the docket established for each
chemical.

       Table 1--Registration Review Interim Decisions Being Issued
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Chemical review
 Registration review case name                             manager and
          and number               Docket ID number          contact
                                                           information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acibenzolar-S-methyl, Case      EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0755..  Leigh Rimmer,
 7031.                                                   [email protected], (703)
                                                         347-0553
Aspergillus flavus, Case 6008.  EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0281..  Alexandra
                                                         Boukedes,
                                                         [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>
Asulam, Case 0265.............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0783..  Caitlin Newcamp,
                                                         [email protected], (703)
                                                         347-0325
Bacillus licheniformis strain   EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0184..  Daniel Schoeff,
 SB3086, Case 6014.                                      [email protected], (703)
                                                         347-0143
Chloroxylenol, Case 3045......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0010..  Rachel
                                                         Ricciardi,
                                                         [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>
Copper Compounds, Cases 0636,   EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0212..  Jordan Page,
 0649, 4025, 4026.                                       [email protected], (703) 347-
                                                         0467, Kimberly
                                                         Wilson,
                                                         [email protected], (703)
                                                         347-0495

Dried Fermentation Solids and   EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0539..  Cody Kendrick,
 Solubles of Myrothecium                                 [email protected]
 verrucaria, Case 6051.                                  pa.gov, (703)
                                                         347-0468
EPTC, Case 0064...............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0720..  Patricia Biggio,
                                                         [email protected], (703)
                                                         347-0547
Ethylene, Case 3071...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0877..  Susanne
                                                         Cerrelli,
                                                         [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fludioxonil, Case 7017........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1067..  Patricia Biggio,
                                                         [email protected], (703)
                                                         347-0547
Formic Acid, Case 6073........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0105..  Cody Kendrick,
                                                         [email protected], (703)
                                                         347-0468
Methyl Nonyl Ketone, Case 3094  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0125..  Daniel Schoeff,
                                                         [email protected], (703)
                                                         347-0143
Niclosamide, Case 2455........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0137..  R. David Jones,
                                                         [email protected], (703)
                                                         305-6725
N\6\-Benzyladenine, Case 2040.  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0190..  Alexandra
                                                         Boukedes,
                                                         [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>
Potassium Silicate, Case 6204.  EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0329..  Donna Kamarei,
                                                         [email protected], (703)
                                                         347-0443
Propamocarb hydrochloride,      EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0662..  Christina
 Case 3124.                                              Scheltema,
                                                         [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>
Putrescent Whole Egg Solids,    EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0726..  Susanne
 Case 4079.                                              Cerrelli,
                                                         [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>
Sodium carbonate, Case 4066...  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0809..  SanYvette
                                                         Williams,
                                                         [email protected],
<PHONE_NUMBER>
TFM, Case 3082................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0137..  R. David Jones,
                                                         [email protected], (703)
                                                         305-6725
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed interim registration review decisions for the
chemicals in the table above were posted to the docket and the public
was invited to submit any comments or new information. EPA addressed
the comments or information received during the 60-day comment period
for the proposed interim decisions in the discussion for each pesticide
listed in the table. Comments from the 60-day comment period that were
received may or may not have affected the Agency's interim decision.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket for
the chemicals listed in the Table will remain open until all actions
required in the interim decision have been completed.
    This document also announces the closure of the registration review
case for Bis (bromoacetoxy)-2-butene (BBAB) (Case 3030, Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0799), because the last U.S. registrations for
these pesticides have been canceled. Background on the registration
review program is provided at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 25, 2018.
Yu-Ting Guilaran,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2018-26354 Filed 12-3-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 245 (Friday, December 22, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 88552-88553]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28238]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-2503; Airspace Docket No. 20-AGL-14]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Desmet, SD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Desmet,
SD. The FAA is proposing this action due to the development of new
public instrument procedures and to support instrument flight rule
(IFR) operations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 5, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-2503 and
Airspace Docket No. 20-AGL-14 using any of the following methods:
    * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instruction for sending your comments electronically.
    * Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    * Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    * Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish the Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Wilder Airport, Desmet, SD, to support IFR
operations at this airport.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or
commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments
are filed in writing.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it received on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or dely. The FAA may change this proposal in light of
the comments it receives.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT post these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address, phone number, and
hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during
normal business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air
Traffic Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group,
10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E airspace is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO
7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order
JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023.
These updates would be published subsequently in the next update to FAA
Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing to amend 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class
E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a
7-mile radius of Wilder Airport, Desmot, SD.
    The FAA is proposing this action due to the development of new
public

instrument procedures and to support IFR operations.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11,
2023, and effective September 15, 2023, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL SD E5 Desmet, SD [Establish]

Wilder Airport, SD
    (Lat. 44[deg]25'59'' N, long. 97[deg]33'29'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Wilder Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 19, 2023.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-28238 Filed 12-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26218-26219]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-1466-000]

Palmco Power NH LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Palmco Power NH LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 11, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 21, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10138 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8527-8529]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03006]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71499; File No. SR-DTC-2014-01]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Order of Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Depository Trust Company Settlement Service Guide
To Lower the Amount of the Maximum Net Debit Cap for an Affiliated
Family of Participants and Make Other Related Changes

February 6, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 24, 2014, the Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared primarily by DTC. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons
and, by this Order, approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 proposed rule change consists of modifications to the DTC
Settlement Service guide (the ``Service Guide'') to: (i) Lower the
amount of the maximum Net Debit Cap for an affiliated family of
Participants, and (ii) make other changes to the Service Guide, as more
fully described below.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Terms not defined herein have the meaning set forth in DTC's
Rules & Procedures (the ``Rules''). Please note that DTC's
Procedures include its service guides, including but not limited to
the Settlement Service guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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 III below. DTC 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
Introduction
    By this filing, DTC seeks to amend the Service Guide to: (i) Lower
the amount of the maximum Net Debit Cap \4\ for an affiliated family of
Participants (``Affiliated Family''),\5\ and (ii) make other changes to
the Service Guide as more fully described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pursuant to Rule 1 the term: (a) ``Net Debit Cap'' of a
Participant means an amount determined by the Corporation in the
manner specified in the Procedures; provided, however, that the
maximum Net Debit Cap of the Participant shall be the least of: (i)
A maximum amount applicable to all Participants based on the
liquidity resources of the Corporation, (ii) the Settling Bank Net
Debit Cap applicable to such Participant or (iii) any other amount
determined by the Corporation, in its sole discretion.
    \5\ Pursuant to Rule 1 the term ``Affiliated Family'' means each
Participant that controls or is controlled by another Participant
and each Participant that is under the common control of any Person.
For purposes of this definition, ``control'' means the direct or
indirect ownership of more than 50% of the voting securities or
other voting interests of any Person.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The Net Debit Cap is a risk management control under the Rules to
limit the net debit balance of any Participant and of any Affiliated
Family to no more than the amount of liquidity resources available to
DTC to complete system-wide settlement in the event of a failure to
settle by the largest Participant or Affiliated Family. Liquidity
resources for DTC include cash deposits to the Participants Fund and a
committed line of credit with a syndicate of commercial lenders.
    Pursuant to the Rules each Participant must: (i) Make a Required
Participants Fund Deposit in cash and (ii) purchase an amount of DTC
Series A Preferred Stock (``DTC Preferred Stock'') (the ``Required
Preferred Stock Investment'').\6\ The aggregate of these amounts across
all Participants is currently (i) $1.15 billion and (ii) $150 million,
respectively, equal to an aggregate funded amount of $1.3 billion.\7\
This amount, plus a committed line of credit of $1.9 billion,\8\
provides DTC with $3.2 billion in liquidity resources. In accordance
with the Rules, the maximum Net Debit Cap of any Participant and its
Affiliated Family may not exceed this total amount of liquidity. The
Net Debit Cap of each Participant is set at or below the maximum based
on historic activity of the Participant; the aggregate amount of the
Net Debit Caps of Participants in an Affiliated Family (the ``Aggregate
Affiliated Family Net Debit Cap'') \9\ is likewise limited by the
amount of these liquidity resources. The maximum Net Debit Cap
currently allowed by DTC for an individual Participant is $1.8 billion
and the maximum Aggregate Affiliated Family Net Debit Cap is $3.0
billion.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See DTC Rule 4, Section 2 et seq.
    \7\ Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 41529 (Jun. 15, 1999),
64 FR 33333 (Jun. 22, 1999) (SR-DTC-1999-08); 43197 (Aug. 23, 2000),
65 FR 52459 (Aug. 29, 2000) (SR-DTC-2000-02); 54775 (Nov. 17, 2006),
71 FR 68662 (Nov. 27, 2006) (SR-DTC-2006-14); 59612 (Mar. 20, 2009),
74 FR 13488 (Mar. 27, 2009) (SR-DTC-2009-06); and 62567 (Dec. 16,
2010), 75 FR 80878 (Dec. 23, 2010) (SR-DTC-2010-14).
    \8\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69556 (May 10, 2013), 78
FR 28933 (May 16, 2013) (SR-DTC-2013-802).
    \9\ Pursuant to Rule 1, the term ``Aggregate Affiliated Family
Net Debit Cap'' means the sum of the Net Debit Caps for the
Participants that are part of an Affiliated Family in the manner
specified in the Procedures; provided, however, that the maximum
Aggregate Affiliated Family Net Debit Cap shall not exceed the total
available liquidity resources of the Corporation.
    \10\ DTC maintains the maximum Aggregate Affiliated Family Net
Debit Cap below its available liquidity resources to adjust for the
possibility that a Participant that is part of an Affiliated Family
and fails to meet its end-of-day settlement obligation may also be
(or be affiliated with) a lender under the line of credit.

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

Proposed Rule Changes
    For purposes of calculating liquidity resources to set the maximum
Aggregate Affiliated Family Net Debit Cap, DTC has previously included
the aggregate amount paid by Participants for the purchase of the DTC
Preferred Stock ($150 million). (The DTC Preferred Stock itself
constitutes capital of DTC.) Under the proposed change, DTC will no
longer count the $150 million amount as a liquidity resource; it will
account for this amount as capital, available for general business
purposes. The maximum Aggregate Affiliated Family Net Debit Cap must
therefore be reduced by $150 million, to reflect reduced cash liquidity
resources available for settlement. Accordingly, the maximum Aggregate
Affiliated Family Net Debit Cap of $3.0 billion will be reduced to
$2.85 billion. In addition, for purposes of calculating Participants
Fund deposits, $150 million will be subtracted from the base amount of
the Participants Fund, currently $600 million which will, accordingly,
be set at $450 million.
    DTC proposes to revise the Service Guide to adjust references to
the Aggregate Affiliated Family Net Debit Cap amount and reflect
related changes to calculations of the Participants Fund.
    In addition, the Service Guide contains a sample calculation of a
Required Participants Fund Deposit which is no longer accurate. Rather
than continue to provide an example which might require updates, DTC
proposes to delete the example and, instead, set forth in the Service
Guide the principles underlying the calculation of the Required
Participants Fund Deposit and Required Preferred Stock Investment.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Required Participants Fund Deposit is calculated by a
formula using the concepts of: (i) A ``base'' amount, allocated
among all Participants (based upon a sixty business-day rolling
average of each Participant's intra-day net debit peaks), and (ii)
an additional amount, allocated among the Affiliated Families that
present the greatest liquidity risk to DTC. Calculation of the
Required Preferred Stock Investment uses the methodology referred to
in clause (i) of the preceding sentence, i.e., the same calculation
as for the base amount of the Participants Fund. The current example
in the Service Guide presents a Participants Fund (and DTC Preferred
Stock) calculation including the base amount and the additional
amount. The total base amount allocated among all Participants is
shown in the example as $600 million, representing $450 million in
cash deposits and $150 million in proceeds of the Required Preferred
Stock Investments. Because funds invested in the DTC Preferred Stock
will not be counted as a liquidity resource, the calculation of a
Participants Required Deposit to the Participants Fund and Required
Preferred Stock Investment will be described separately in the
Service Guide, so the Required Preferred Stock Investment
calculation will be removed from the Participants Fund section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC will also take this opportunity to: (i) Clarify procedures for
payment of Required Participants Fund Deposits and the purchase of a
Participant's Required Preferred Stock Investment, and (ii) make other
clarifying technical changes to the Service Guide.
Implementation Timeframe
    The effective date of the proposed Rule change will be announced
via a DTC Important Notice.
2. Statutory Basis
    By reducing the maximum Aggregate Affiliated Family Net Debit Cap,
as described above, the proposed rule change will support the
maintenance of adequate DTC liquidity resources available to complete
system-wide settlement in the event of a failure to settle by the
largest Participant or Affiliated Family. Therefore, DTC believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC, in particular
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \12\ of the Act which requires that DTC's Rules be
designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed Rule change will have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition, as DTC expects the
proposed reduction of the maximum Aggregate Affiliated Family Net Debit
Cap from $3.0 billion to $2.85 billion to have minimal impact on the
ability of any affected Participant to settle securities transactions
through DTC.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received with respect to this filing.

III. 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 No. SR-DTC-2014-01 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-DTC-2014-01. 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 Web site (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 Web site 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 such filings also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTC's Web site at
http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx. All comments received will
be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-DTC-2014-01 and should be submitted on or
before March 5, 2014.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    Section 19(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act \13\ directs the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it
finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder

applicable to such organization. Here, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, in
particular the requirements of Section 17A of the Act,\14\ and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC. Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,\15\ which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a registered clearing agency ``are designed
to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of
securities transactions . . ., to assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or
for which it is responsible.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(i).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1. In approving this proposed rule change,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, DTC intends to no longer account for the $150
million paid by Participants for their Required Preferred Stock
Investment as a liquidity resource, but as business capital only.
Consequently, DTC is proposing this rule change in order to lower its
Net Debit Cap for Aggregate Affiliated Families by the same amount so
that the Aggregated Affiliated Family Net Debt Cap, and thus DTC's
liquidity exposure in the event of an Affiliated Family default, does
not exceed the actual amount of liquidity resources available to DTC.
As such, the Commission finds this proposed rule change consistent with
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act \18\ allows the Commission to
approve a proposed rule change earlier than 30 days after the date of
publication of the notice of the proposed rule change in the Federal
Register where the Commission finds good cause for doing so and
publishes its reason. Here, as discussed above, DTC has more precisely
allocated the $150 million in proceeds from the sale of its preferred
stock solely for business capital purposes rather than for both
business capital purposes and as a liquidity resource. Given that the
financial stability of DTC and the safeguarding of securities in its
custody or control or for which it is responsible is in the public
interest, the Commission finds good cause for the accelerated approval
of this proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act
\19\ so that DTC can implement the proposed change to reflect DTC's
reallocation of such proceeds, thus realigning the liquidity exposure
presented to DTC by the failure of an Affiliated Family to meet its
settlement obligations with the actual amount of liquidity resources
available to DTC. If DTC were not able to make this proposed change
immediately, the potential exists for DTC's liquidity exposure to
exceed its liquidity resources, which could undermine the stability of
DTC and the safety of the securities it maintains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\20\ that the proposed rule change (SR-DTC-2014-01) be, and it
hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-03006 Filed 2-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 26090]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11690]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0051: FRL-9962-90-Region 10]

Adequacy Determination for the Oakridge-Westfir, Oregon PM2.5
State Implementation Plan for Transportation Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy determination.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is notifying the
public of its finding that the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB)
for primary particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of a
nominal 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) in the Oakridge-Westfir
PM2.5 state implementation plan (SIP or attainment plan) are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes. The attainment plan
was submitted to the EPA by the State of Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ or the State) on January 20, 2017. As a
result of this adequacy finding, the Oregon DEQ, the Oregon Department
of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of Transportation will be
required to use these MVEBs for future transportation conformity
determinations.

DATES: This finding is effective June 21, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The finding will be available at the
EPA's conformity Web site: https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/state-implementation-plans-sip-submissions-epa-has-found-adequate-or. You may also contact Dr. Karl Pepple, U.S. EPA,
Region 10 (OAWT-107), 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101;
(206) 553-1778; or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action provides notice of the EPA's
adequacy finding regarding the MVEBs located in the attainment plan for
the 2006 PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards for
purposes of transportation conformity. The EPA's finding was made
pursuant to the adequacy review process for state attainment plan
submissions delineated at 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1) under which the EPA
reviews the adequacy of an attainment plan submission prior to the
EPA's final action on the attainment plan.
    Before the attainment plan was submitted to the EPA, consultation
among federal, State, and local agencies occurred. The State submitted
the attainment plan to the EPA on January 20, 2017. Pursuant to 40 CFR
93.118(f)(1), the EPA notified the public of its receipt of this plan
and its review for an adequacy determination on the EPA's Web site and
requested public comment by no later than March 9, 2017. The EPA
received no comments on the plan during the comment period. As part of
our analysis, we also reviewed the State's compilation of public
comments and response to comments that were submitted during the
State's public process for the attainment plan. The EPA finds that the
MVEBs in the attainment plan are adequate for purposes of
transportation conformity. There were no comments submitted on the
attainment plan during the State public process.
    The EPA notified Oregon DEQ in a letter dated April 24, 2017
(adequacy letter), subsequent to the close of the EPA comment period,
that the EPA had found the MVEBs located in the attainment plan to be
adequate for use in transportation conformity. A copy of the adequacy
letter and its enclosure are available in the docket for this action
and at the EPA's conformity Web site.\1\ The MVEB that the EPA
determined to be adequate for purposes of transportation conformity is
listed in the following table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/state-implementation-plans-sip-submissions-epa-has-found-adequate-or.

 2015 Worst Case Day Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget for Oakridge-Westfir
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary PM2.5.............................  22.2 lbs/day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. Transportation conformity to an attainment plan means
that on-road transportation activities will not produce new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the national ambient air quality standards. The minimum criteria by
which we determine whether an attainment plan is adequate for
conformity purposes are specified at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The EPA's
analysis of how the attainment plan satisfies these criteria is found
in the adequacy letter and its enclosure. The EPA's adequacy review is
separate from the EPA's attainment plan completeness review and it is
not dispositive of the EPA's ultimate action on the attainment plan.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-767Iq.

    Dated: May 10, 2017.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2017-11690 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P