[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 126 (Tuesday, June 30, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39068-39069]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13994]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0164; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-3]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace;
Bogue, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace by updating the geographic
coordinates, and removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Bogue Field Marine Corps Auxiliary Field,
Bogue, NC, at the request of the US Marine Corps. Class E airspace is
no longer required, as there are no instrument approaches into Bogue
Field MCALF. This action also replaces the outdated term Airport/
Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the legal
description of associated Class D airspace. This action enhances the
safety and management of controlled airspace within the national
airspace system.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 10, 2020. 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 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; 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 amends Class D airspace and removes Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bogue Field MCALF, Bogue, NC,
due to the airspace no longer being necessary.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 14809, March 16, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0164 to
amend Class D airspace by updating the geographic coordinates, and
remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Bogue Field Marine Corps Auxiliary Field, Bogue, NC as the
airport has no instrument approaches. Therefore, the Class E airspace
is no longer necessary. This action enhances the safety and management
of controlled airspace within the national airspace system.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by

submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No negative
comments were received.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
Paragraphs 5000 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11D, dated
August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designation
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part
71 amends Class D airspace at Bogue Field Marine Corps Auxiliary Field,
Bogue, NC, by updating the geographic coordinates, and removes Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Bogue
Field Marine Corps Auxiliary Field, Bogue, NC as the airport has no
instrument approaches. This action enhances the safety and management
of controlled airspace within the national airspace system. This action
also replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the
term Chart Supplement in the legal description of associated Class D
airspace.
    These changes are necessary for continued safety and management of
IFR operations at this airport.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

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 5-6.5a. 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).

Adoption of 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 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 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019,
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO NC D Bogue, NC [Amended]

Bogue Field MCALF, NC
    (Lat. 34[deg]41'24'' N, long. 77[deg]01'45'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of Bogue Field MCALF. This
Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

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

* * * * *

ASO NC E5 Bogue, NC [Removed]

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 24, 2020.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2020-13994 Filed 6-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="19/05/2008 07:59:33 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6152-6154]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03282]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0143]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Foreign Supplier
Verification Programs for Food Importers

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 March
28, 2019.

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_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0752.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of
Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-
12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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.

Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) for Food Importers

OMB Control Number 0910-0752--Extension

    This information collection supports FDA regulations at 21 CFR part
1, subpart L--Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for Food
Importers, as well as associated guidance. As amended by the FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353), the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) enables the Agency to better protect
the public health by helping to ensure the safety and security of the
food supply. The regulations are intended to help ensure that food
imported into the United States is produced in compliance with specific
processes and procedures, including reasonably appropriate risk-based
preventive controls. The regulations establish that importers of foods
must develop, maintain, and follow an FSVP that provides adequate
assurances that a foreign supplier is producing the food in compliance
with processes and procedures that provide at least the same level of
public health protection as those required under section 418 of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350g) (regarding hazard analysis and risk-based
preventive controls for certain foods) or 419 (21 U.S.C. 350h)
(regarding standards for produce safety), if either is applicable, and
the implementing regulations, and is producing the food in compliance
with sections 402 (21 U.S.C. 342) (regarding adulteration) and 403(w)
(21 U.S.C. 343(w)) (if applicable) (regarding misbranding with respect
to labeling for the presence of major food allergens) of the FD&C Act.
The regulations also provide for certain exemptions.
    To assist respondents with understanding the regulatory
requirements, we have developed Agency guidance, which is available at:
https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/ucm253380.htm.
    In the Federal Register of October 22, 2018 (83 FR 53271), we
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    We estimate the burden for the information collection as follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of
              21 CFR section(s)                   Number of     responses per   Total annual          Average burden per response           Total hours
                                                 respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exemption for food for research 1.501(c).....          36,360              40       1,454,400  0.083 (5 minutes)........................         120,715
DUNS number for filing with U.S. Customs and           56,800             157       8,917,600  0.02 (1.2 minutes).......................         178,352
 Border Protection 1.509, 1.511, 1.512.
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  .........................................         299,067
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

                                                   Table 2--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of
   Information collection activity; 21 CFR        Number of      records per    Total annual        Average burden per recordkeeping        Total hours
                  section(s)                    recordkeepers   recordkeeper       records
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controls for low-acid canned foods; 1.502(b).           2,443               4           9,772  1........................................           9,772
FSVP Recordkeeping, including hazard determination, written procedures, reevaluation; audits; and corrective actions:
    Determine and document hazards; 1.504(a).          11,701               1          11,701  3.5......................................          40,954
    Review hazard analysis; 1.504(d).........          11,701               7          81,907  0.33 (20 minutes)........................          27,029
    Evaluation of food and foreign supplier;           11,701               1          11,701  4........................................          46,804
     1.505(a)(2), 1.511(c)(1).
    Approval of suppliers; 1.505(b),                    8,191               1           8,191  12.......................................         928,292
     1.512(c)(1)(iii).
    Reevaluation of food and foreign                   11,701             365       4,270,865  0.25 (15 minutes)........................       1,067,716
     supplier; 1.505(c), 1.512(c)(1)(ii)(A).
    Confirm or change requirements of foreign           2,340               1           2,340  2........................................           4,680
     supplier verification activity;
     1.505(c), 1.512(c)(1)(ii)(A).
    Review of other entities assessments;               3,510               1           3,510  1.2......................................           4,212
     1.505(d), 1.512(c)(1)(iii).
    Written procedures for use of approved             11,701               1          11,701  8........................................          93,608
     foreign suppliers; 1.506(a)(1),
     1.511(c)(2), 1.512(c)(3)(i).
    Review of written procedures;                      11,701               1          11,701  1........................................          11,701
     1.506(a)(2), 1.511(c)(2)(ii),
     1.512(c)(3)(ii).
    Written procedures for conducting                  11,701               1          11,701  2........................................          23,402
     verification activities; 1.506(b),
     1.511(c)(3).
    Determination and documentation of                 11,701               4          46,804  3.25.....................................         152,113
     appropriate supplier verification
     activities; 1.506(d)(1)-(2)
     1.511(c)(5)(i).
    Review of appropriate supplier                     11,701               2          23,402  0.33 (20 minutes)........................           7,723
     verification activities determined by
     another entity; 1.506(d)(3)
     1.511(c)(5)(iii).
    Conduct/review audits; 1.506(e)(1)(i),             11,701               2          23,402  3........................................          70,206
     1.511(c)(4)(ii)(A).
    Conduct periodic sampling/testing;                 11,701               2          23,402  1........................................          23,402
     1.506(e)(1)(ii), 1.511(c)(4)(ii)(B).
    Review records; 1.506(e)(1)(iii),                  11,701               2          23,402  1.6......................................          37,443
     1.511(c)(4)(ii)(C).
    Document your review of supplier                   11,701               6          70,206  0.25 (15 minutes)........................          17,552
     verification activity records;
     1.506(e)(3), 1.511(c)(4)(iii).
    Document hazard controls; 1.507(a)(1)....          11,701            3.17          37,092  1.25.....................................          46,365
    Written assurances; 1.507(a)(2), (a)(3),           11,701            8.72         102,038  0.50 (30 minutes)........................          51,019
     and (a)(4).
    Disclosures that accompany assurances;            102,038               1         102,038  0.50 (30 minutes)........................          51,019
     1.507(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4).
    Document assurances from customers;                36,522             2.8         102,262  0.25 (15 minutes)........................          25,566
     1.507(c).
    Document corrective actions; 1.508(a),              2,340               1           2,340  2........................................           4,680
     1.512(b)(4).
    Investigate and determine FSVP adequacy;            2,340               1           2,340  5........................................          11,700
     1.508(b), 1.511(c)(1).
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal for FSVP Recordkeeping        ..............  ..............       4,984,046  .........................................       1,917,186
         Itemized Above.
    Written assurances for food produced               11,701            2.88          33,699  2.25.....................................          75,823
     under dietary supplement current good
     manufacturing practices; 1.511(b).
    Document very small importer/certain               50,450               1          50,450  1........................................          50,450
     small foreign supplier status;
     1.512(b)(1).
    Written assurances associated with very            50,450             2.8         141,260  2.25.....................................         317,835
     small importer/certain small foreign
     supplier 1.512(b)(3).
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Total................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  .........................................       2,361,294
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with the information collection.

    We are retaining the currently approved burden estimates. The FSVP
requirements became effective May 30, 2017, and we continue to evaluate
associated burden.

    Dated: February 21, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-03282 Filed 2-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: June 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 33736-33737]
[DOCID:fr12jn06-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP04-379-001]

Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC; Notice of Application

June 2, 2006.
    Take notice that on May 23, 2006, Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC
(Pine Prairie), 333 Clay Street, Suite 1600, Houston, Texas, 77002,
filed in Docket No. CP04-379-001 an application under section 7 of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, to amend its Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity to authorize Pine Prairie to construct,
operate, and maintain 14.10 miles of 24-inch diameter bi-directional
natural gas pipelines and associated facilities that interconnect the
high-deliverability salt-dome natural gas storage facility currently
under construction by Pine Prairie in Evangeline Parrish, Louisiana
with Columbia Gulf Transmission Company and Texas Gas Transmission,
LLC, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file
with the Commission and open to public inspection. Pine Prairie's
application also seeks reaffirmation of its previously-granted
authorization to charge market-based rates for its storage and hub
services. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY, (202)
208-3676.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
James F. Bowe Jr., Dewey Ballantine LLP, 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20006-4605, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments
protests and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Comment Date: June 23, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-9093 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES March 22, 2006 DP Barcode: D292330 PC Code: 121601 MEMORANDUM Subject: EFED Response to ARP Comments of January 19, 2006 To: Felecia Fort, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch 3 ( RB3) Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

Donald Stubbs, Chief Herbicide Branch Registration Division ( 7505C)

From: Michael R. Barrett, Ph. D., Senior Chemist Ronald Parker, Ph. D., Senior Environmental Engineer Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

Through: Mah Shamim, Ph. D., Chief Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

Steven P. Bradbury, Ph. D. Director Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

Attached is the EFED response to Acetochlor Registration Partnership comments on the OPP document entitled " Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Acetochlor". An updated version of the document ( February 16, 2006) which includes changes resulting from these comments has been reissued under the title, " Revised Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Acetochlor". Acetochlor Registration Partnership Comments and OPP/ EFED Responses ARP Comment ( Page 10)

The abbreviation " SGW" is given for the state ground water monitoring program; however, the document subsequently uses other abbreviations for this same study, including " GWM" ( the one used by the ARP) and " SMP." The ARP suggests " GWM" be used throughout in order to maintain consistency with the borrowed figures and tables. Similarly, the abbreviation " SWM" is given for the surface water monitoring program, but other acronyms are used, such as " SDWS." The ARP suggests " SWM" be used throughout.

EFED Response:

EFED has changed any references to the State Groundwater Monitoring data in the assessments to SGW and any references to the State Drinking Water Supply data to SDWS to be consistent from section to section. An exception to this would be any reference citations from the ARP.

ARP Comment ( Page 11)

The final paragraph suggests that the SWM monitoring sites " do not fully represent the sites where highest concentrations in then current or potential surface source drinking water occurred." The ARP reminds the Agency that the SWM, which had a total of 175 sites, included ALL Community Water Systems in the sampling stratum with highest corn intensity (> 20%), and that the Agency participated fully in site selection and approved site selection prior to the collection of the first samples in March 1995. Multiple memos of conference between the ARP and EPA between March 1994 and June 1995 addressed sites and conditions relative to all water monitoring programs. In a March 30, 1995 memo to Donald Stubbs the agreements reached during the January 13, 1995 meeting are detailed as outlined in the original March 1994 letter setting the conditions of registration. In the January 13, 1995 memo it states under Section 6.1 Surface Water Monitoring: a. " EPA agreed that the surface water monitoring ( SWM) program sampling schedule,  basic design elements and states in which the program will be conducted . are acceptable to EPA." Each memo of conference states that " EPA has been frequently apprised of progress through individual meetings and Quarterly Reports" ( January 1995 Memo of conference, cited in the Acetochlor registration agreement and addenda, http:// www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ aceto/ regagree. htm). The ARP stands by the entire site selection process as approved and regularly reviewed by the Agency. Recent drinking water monitoring for acetochlor by the EPA Office of Water UCMR ( http:// www. epa. gov/ ogwdw000/ ucmr/ data. html# 1) has resulted in the collection of well over 30,000 drinking water samples at over 3000 sites without a single detection of acetochlor in drinking water > 2 ppb. In contrast, the ARP surface drinking water program identified several sites with samples over 2 ppb. Clearly, therefore, the SWM effectively captured sites at the high end of the distribution, as intended by the Agency when it approved the design of the study.

EFED Response:

The ARP's statements reflecting the history of the site selection process for sample collection appear to be factually correct. However, for several reasons, EFED believes, that these sites do not necessarily present a complete exposure picture for acetochlor usage on corn during this period and that the SDWS therefore may not fully represent the sites where highest concentrations of acetochlor may have occurred. This may have occurred for several reasons:

( 1) The assumptions made by the ARP/ OPP site selection team were not entirely accurate in predicting the eventual area of highest usage. An overlay of acetochlor sales data with the SDWS sampling sites shows that the two do not match well in some areas. Future acetochlor usage during the period was not known at the time the ARP study was being planned. The SDWS design was based upon 1992 corn acreage density, not on acetochlor usage intensity during the 1995   2001 monitoring period.

( 2) Many of the high acetochlor usage areas were not monitored at all. Only 19% of the total ARP sales over the 1995 to 2001 monitoring period were in counties that were included in the watersheds which encompass the ARP CWS monitoring sites. Only 29 of the top 200 acetochlor usage counties over the first 10 years of registration constituted a portion of the watershed for one or more ARP surface water monitoring sites. It is likely that at least some of these unmonitored high acetochlor usage regions either have had or may have in the future Community Water systems utilizing surface water sources.

( 3) Many of the extensively monitored areas had little acetochlor usage during the monitoring period, particularly the sites in Pennsylvania and Delaware.

EFED does believe that the ARP SDWS study is a very valuable source of information on exposure to acetochlor and the other herbicides monitored in many of the major corn production areas of the United States. This study has been used more extensively in EFED drinking water exposure assessments than almost any other single monitoring study.

ARP Comment ( Page 12):

The first paragraph claims that the focus on finished drinking water is " especially problematic for broader interpretation." The EPA agreed to the selection of finished drinking water as the only matrix of interest ( Section 6.1. c, Attachment to March 8, 1994 letter setting forth conditions of registration of Acetochlor, http:// www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ aceto/ regagree. htm) in a meeting on January 13, 1995, documented in the addendum to the acetochlor registration agreement. Up until now, nearly 12 years later, the Agency has never questioned this point. The ARP unilaterally added raw water as a second matrix at all locations that used granular activated carbon ( GAC) and a number of sites using powdered activated carbon ( PAC). As stated by the ARP numerous times, we have no evidence that conventional drinking water treatment ( without activated carbon) substantially reduces acetochlor concentrations in source water. Again, the Office of Water data confirms the adequacy of the ARP drinking water monitoring program.

EFED Response:

As in the EFED response to the ARP comment on page 11, we agree with the ARP's statements reflecting the history of the site selection process for sample collection. The ARP's citation of historical meeting results appears to be accurate. However, the final design did not consider all potential benefits of paired finished and raw water sampling, such as a marked increase in the reliability of extrapolation of the monitoring program results to other sites. Sampling of finished water alone makes it impossible to separate out the impact of water treatment on the observed concentrations and therefore to separately evaluate the impacts of acetochlor usage intensity, weather, stream flow, soil characteristics, topography, and other factors on acetochlor runoff. One cannot assume that the impact of water treatment ( whatever type of treatment system is used) will be equivalent for all CWS ( and indeed it appeared to be highly variable for the few ARP monitoring sites that did have paired raw and finished water data). EFED is using this data set to the greatest extent possible in estimating exposure to acetochlor from drinking water supplies both from sites that experienced a high level of treatment and those that did not.

ARP Comment ( Page 13)

In the final paragraph, the Agency questions whether the observation that activated carbon lowers parent acetochlor concentrations by 50% and that the data " preclude generalizing this as a predictable effect of water treatment". The statement " no data are available that match the same water in raw and finished water" is both incorrect and irrelevant. It is incorrect because many of the systems utilized reservoirs with residence times far exceeding the holding time within the plant, meaning the raw and finished water samples represent the " same water," as a first approximation. It is also incorrect because the ARP conducted a collaborative study with several third party researchers and published it in the peer reviewed literature ( Gustafson et al., 2003, Activated carbon adsorption of chloroacetanilide herbicides and their degradation products from surface water samples, J. Water Supply Res. Technol. AQUA, 52: 443 454.), in which the effect of PAC on acetochlor, acetochlor degradates, other herbicides and their degradates was directly measured in lab jar tests. Finally, it is irrelevant because of basic statistical theory, which may be used to show that any variance introduced by the effect of unknown treatment holding time within the water plant would add only random error of mean zero, without introducing any systematic bias in the apparent reduction percentage.

EFED Response:

EFED agrees that the matching of water between the raw and treated water is likely to be better for most reservoir systems than river or stream source water systems. EFED still believes that the inability to match water likely introduces significant variability in some paired samples that arises from differences in the effects of treatment. EFED has modified the text in the Drinking Water Assessment to reflect that while specific matching of raw and finished water is not available for the ARP study, other studies of treatment effects are available such as that by Gustafson et al. ( 2003).

There does seem to be an unusual characteristic of the dataset with regards to the distributions of raw and finished water concentrations. Most of the highest monitored concentrations were found in treated water. This means that one or more of the following situations exist:   Effective water treatment systems removing acetochlor residues were not employed at many CWS with source water vulnerable to acetochlor contamination   Effective water treatment systems were employed at highly vulnerable sites which were not sampled pretreatment and the pretreatment levels would have been much higher if such samples had been taken at the remaining sites   Ostensively effective water treatment systems were employed, but the techniques shown to maximize the efficiency of activated carbon treatment systems by Gustafson et al. ( 2003) were not consistently employed and therefore in some systems the residues of raw water, even if perfectly matched with finished water, would not have been significantly lower than in the corresponding finished water sample.

At most of the SDWS study sites pretreatment water was not collected and there is no possibility of comparing the acetochlor levels observed with the pretreatment levels.

ARP Comment ( Page 14)

In the first full paragraph, the ARP respectfully requests that the Agency produce quantitative data supporting its implication that drinking water concentrations might be up to 3X higher than those shown in Table 1. The conservative WARP model listed in this table shows excellent agreement with ARP monitoring results for both " peak" and median concentrations. The lack of detections in the Office of Water monitoring provides further evidence that no such " uncertainty factor" should be applied to the drinking water concentrations measured by the ARP.

EFED Response The quantitative assessment of how residue levels might vary at sites the ARP did not monitor will be included in the new uses drinking water assessment. The ARP may wish to review EFED's detailed assessment at that time. However, generally, the following factors are important when extrapolating to estimate exposure at non ARP monitored sties:   Differences in usage intensity   Differences in levels of water treatment.   Differences in agricultural practice   Differences in weather The concentrations at the ARP sites are also expected to under estimate the actual concentrations at the monitored sites. Single samples taken at 14 day intervals, will almost always underestimate actual peaks because the highest concentrations likely to occur between samples.

ARP Comment ( Page 28)

In the final paragraph before section 5.7.3, the " 3 2 1" restriction should be mentioned immediately after reference is made to the 3% sands/ 30 ft restriction.

EFED Response:

EFED agrees and has made this change.

ARP Comment ( Page 50)

The column labeled " Mean Conc" in Table 14 should be footnoted to make it clear these are not time weighted means. The table should also be modified to indicate what time periods are represented and the actual date of each maximum.

EFED Response:

EFED notes on " Mean Conc" and " Max Conc" columns have been added to the report.


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="16/06/2008 12:38:28 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34280-34281]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15379]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Regulation R, Rule 701, SEC File No. 270-562, OMB Control No.
3235-0624

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
existing collection of information provided for in Regulation R, Rule
701 (17 CFR 247.701) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing
collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Regulation R, Rule 701 requires a broker or dealer (as part of a
written agreement between the bank and the broker or dealer) to notify
the bank if the broker or dealer makes certain determinations regarding
the financial status of the customer, a bank employee's statutory
disqualification status, and compliance with suitability or
sophistication standards.
    The Commission estimates that brokers or dealers would, on average,
notify 1,000 banks approximately two times annually about a
determination regarding a customer's high net worth or institutional
status or suitability or sophistication standing as well as a bank
employee's statutory disqualification status. Based on these estimates,
the Commission anticipates that Regulation R, Rule 701 would result in
brokers or dealers making approximately 2,000 notifications to banks
per year. The Commission further estimates (based on the level of
difficulty and complexity of the applicable activities) that a broker
or dealer would spend approximately 15 minutes per notice to a bank.
Therefore, the estimated total annual third party disclosure burden for
the requirements in Regulation R, Rule 701 is 500 \1\ hours for brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ (2000 notices x 15 minutes) = 30,000 minutes/60 minutes =
500 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to: [email protected].

     Dated: July 13, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15379 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 120 (Thursday, June 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37538-37539]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13381]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[No. 34-95114; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2022-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Rule 7.31 To Add Subparagraph (f)(4) Regarding Directed Orders

June 16, 2022.
    On April 20, 2022, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to modify Rule 7.31 (Orders and Modifiers) to
allow an ETP Holder to submit Directed Orders to be routed directly to
an alternative trading system (``ATS'') specified by the ETP Holder.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on May 10, 2022.\3\ The Commission has received no comment
letters on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 94842 (May 4, 2022),
87 FR 28041 (May 10, 2022) (SR-NYSENAT-2022-06) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission will either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is June 24, 2022. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change, so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed
rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\5\ designates August 8, 2022, as the date by which the
Commission shall either approve or

disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSENAT-2022-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13381 Filed 6-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P