Subject:	Chemistry Science Advisory Council (ChemSAC) Meeting Minutes

Meeting Date:	12/14/2011

To:		HED's Chemistry Interest Group

From:		HED's ChemSAC

Attendees:	See Attached

PART I.  Review of the Analysis of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) Crop Grouping to Amend the Crop Group Regulation and Commodity Definitions Related to the Crop Group 4 Leafy Vegetables and Crop Group 5 Brassica Leafy Vegetables (PMRA and IR-4 joined by conference call).

There were four proposals associated with this petition.

PART IA. IR-4 Proposal 1.  "Amend the existing leafy vegetable crop group in 40 CFR 180.41 (c) (4) that consists of two subgroups and 27 commodity entries to an expanded crop group that consists of a total 78 commodity entries."

Dr. Schneider stated that "based on similarities of the comparison of the proposed leafy vegetable commodities plant morphology, cultural practices including all are row crops, similar pest problems, edible food portions and lack of livestock feed portions, similar exposure to residues, geographical locations, processing, established tolerances, and for international harmonization purposes, I recommend that ChemSAC concur to amend the current leafy vegetable crop group 4 to a leafy vegetable crop group 4-12."  In addition the current leaf petiole subgroup 4B should be removed to form a new stalk, stem, and leaf petiole crop group 22.  In addition, the current Brassica leafy greens subgroup 5B should be moved to crop group 4 as a new subgroup since its commodities are more similar to the leafy vegetables in crop group 4 than the head and stem vegetable subgroup in crop group 5.  Inclusion of Brassica leafy vegetables in a separate subgroup is desirable because of potentially different actions of herbicides on leafy Brassicas verses other leafy (non-Brassica) crops.  Also, for harmonization purposes with Codex, the leaves of root and tuber vegetables, human food crop group 2 commodities may also be added to the amended crop group 4 as a subgroup; but it depends upon further discussion of the individual IR-4 proposals (see PART IB and IC) to the amended crop group 4.

Both ChemSAC and PMRA agreed with the analysis to changes proposed for both crop group 4 and 5 in moving the current leaf petiole subgroup 4B to a new stalk, stem, and leaf petiole crop group 22 and to move the Brassica leafy greens subgroup 5B from crop group 5 to an amended crop group 4.

However, ChemSAC and PMRA did not agree to move all the leaves of root and tuber vegetables, human food crop group 2 commodities to the amended crop group 4 without further discussion (See PART IB and IC).

Also, Dr. Schneider recommended deleting twenty proposed commodities due to lack of cultivation or being a noxious weed.  ChemSAC suggested that for international harmonization purposes and for continued development ethnic crops to revisit these commodities.  These commodities were revisited and thirteen were added back to the amended group based on that they are grown in Asia, Europe, or Africa, and may have potential to be grown in North America based on future consumer demands or imports (see Table 1).

Table 1.  Proposed Crop Group 4 Commodities and whether they are Recommended to be Accepted (A) or Rejected (J) in This Analysis.  (Originally these were the list of rejected commodities, except for garland chrysanthemum).
Proposed Crop Group 4 Commodities
Recommend Accepted (A) or Rejected (J) Commodities to Crop Group 4 and, if Rejected, Why
Aster, Indian
A  -  Locally grown mainly in Africa.
Blackjack
A  -  Some cultivation in Africa, and mainly gathered from the wild in Africa.
Cat's Whiskers
A  -  Some cultivation of leaves in Africa and SE Asia.
Cham-chwi
A -  Korea and China mostly gathered from wild and it is cultivated in Asia.
Cham-na-mul
A  -  Mostly gathered from wild in Korea, China, and Russia.
Chayote, leaves
J  -  Leaves of cucurbits were not accepted due to being morphologically dissimilar to other leafy crops.
Chrysanthemum, corn
J  -  The significant edible leafy chrysanthemum is garland chrysanthemum.
Chrysanthemum, edible-leaved
J  -  According to USDA GRIN Taxonomy this crop is another name for garland chrysanthemum.
Chrysanthemum, garland
A  -  Correct commodity name.
Chrysanthemum, tricolor
J  -  Major use is as an ornamental and is covered under garland chrysanthemum.
Cosmos
A  -  Mostly grown in Malaysia and it is rare in the U.S. and is not in marketplaces yet.
Dol-nam-mul
A  -  mostly grown in Korea, and it has ornamental uses and can be a weed in the U.S.
Feather cockscomb
A  -  Valuable in Africa and China other areas it is an ornamental.
Fern, Edible (Fiddlehead)
J  -  Growth characteristics different from the members of the Leafy vegetable crop groups 4 and 5.  It should be consider as a Stalk, stem and leaf petiole vegetable.
Iceplant
J  -  Cultivated in some areas but invasive weed in others, also used to stabilize soils.
Lettuce, bitter
A  -  Gathered mostly from the wild, invasive but important in Africa.
Plantain, common change to Buckhorn plantain
A  -  Mostly found in the U.S. as a weed, not cultivated in the U.S. but it is found available in some gourmet restaurants and for Italian cooking. Also called Minutina Plantago coronopus L.
Primrose, English
A  -  Mostly used now as an ornamental in North America, but it is marketed in Europe.
Shepherd's purse
A  -  Gathered from the wild weed most of world, but grown in China and Korea.
Sowthistle
J  -  Major temperate invasive weed grown in some places often gathered from the wild.
Velvet plant, leaves
A  -  Locally grown mostly in Asia.
Violet, Chinese
A  -  Mostly gathered from the wild in Asia and Africa, and it also has herbal uses.

Another crop considered, but not included was lambsquarter (Chenopodium album L.), which although consumed in certain parts of the world (Africa, India, Japan, and China), is considered a noxious weed in many other parts of the world.  However, tree spinach or giant lambsquarter (Chenopodium giganteum D. Don) is grown as a leafy vegetable in Russia and the UK and will be added to the amended crop group 4.

PART IB. IR-4 Proposal 2:  "The proposed representative commodities for the leafy vegetable crop group 4  -  12 are head lettuce, leaf lettuce, spinach, mustard greens or kale, and beet, garden, leaves and sweet potato, leaves."

Dr. Schneider recommended ChemSAC approve head lettuce, leaf lettuce, spinach, mustard greens or kale, and beet, garden, leaves as representative commodities for the leafy vegetable crop group.  These representative commodities represent over 93 % of the total leafy vegetable harvested acres reported in the USDA Ag Census, and are also the highest consumed commodities on a per capita basis in the group.  Head lettuce accounts for 43% of the acres and leaf lettuce 37% (includes Romaine lettuce), spinach (rep for subgroup 4A) accounts for 11 %, and mustard greens or kale for 3%.  These commodities have a long regulatory history as being representative commodities for crop groups 4 and 5.  It is expected that all proposed members of the amended leafy vegetable crop will have similar residue levels based on similarities of the raw agricultural commodities (RAC's), cultural practices, and pest problems.  Sweet potato leaves were not recommended to be an alternative representative commodity with beet, garden, tops or leaves due to the production being too low compared to garden beet leaves.  Garden beet tops can adequately represent the members of the proposed leaves of root and tuber subgroup 4C.

ChemSAC and PMRA agreed with the recommendations that head lettuce, leaf lettuce, spinach, and mustard greens would be adequate representative commodities for the amended leafy vegetable crop group 4-12.  However, Canada did not recommend kale be an alternative representative commodity with mustard greens since it has much less production than mustard greens, and ChemSAC concurred.  In addition both ChemSAC and PMRA did not recommended beet, garden, leaves as a representative commodity because they feel it should remain in crop group 2.  Further crop subgroup recommendations will be discussed in PART IC IR-4 Proposal 3 below.

PART IC IR-4 Proposal 3:  "Propose establishing three crop subgroups 4A  -  leafy greens subgroup with forty-one commodities with head lettuce and leaf lettuce and spinach being representative commodities, 4B  -  Brassica leafy greens subgroup with twenty-two commodities with mustard greens or kale being representative commodities, and 4C  -  leaves of root and tuber vegetable, human food subgroup with thirteen commodities with garden beet leaves and sweet potato leaves being the representative commodities."

Dr. Schneider recommended that ChemSAC approve the three proposed crop subgroups because of similarities between cultural practices, potential residue exposure due to leaf area, dietary consumption importance, and lack of livestock feed items as well as similarities to the current leafy vegetable crop group.  The three crop subgroups are similar to the current established crop groups 4, 5, and 2.  The proposed leafy greens subgroup 4A  -  12 is the same subgroup 4A in the current crop group 4 with the same representative commodities.  Based on these criteria, three representative commodities are proposed (head lettuce, leaf lettuce and spinach) for subgroup 4A; one representative commodity (mustard greens or kale) is proposed for subgroup 4B and one representative commodities (garden beet, tops) are proposed for subgroup 4C.  Beet, garden, tops (leaves) can adequately represent the members of the proposed leaves of root and tuber, human food subgroup 4C.  The crop subgroup for leaves of root and tuber, human food subgroup 4C was recommended by IR-4 to harmonize with the Codex leafy vegetable group.

ChemSAC and PMRA agreed with the recommendations to establish a leafy greens subgroup 4A and a Brassica leafy greens subgroup 4B.  Canada did not recommend kale be an alternative representative commodity with mustard greens in the Brassica leafy greens subgroup and ChemSAC concurred.

Both ChemSAC and PMRA did not agree to approve a crop subgroup 4C "leaves of root and tuber, human food" which would have harmonized with Codex.  Based on a long history of the Root and tuber vegetable crop group having a separate leaves of root and tuber vegetable, human food or livestock feed crop group 2, ChemSAC felt that it was better to remain in crop group 2.  They did state that when IR-4 pursues amending crop group 2 that separate crop subgroups for human food and one for livestock feed would be beneficial.

Regarding the Brassica leafy greens subgroups, ChemSAC wanted more information on turnip greens and radish leaves.  The questions were: 1) are these crops grown as distinct varieties for their leaves; and 2) are label restrictions on these two crops adequate.

As a follow-up to these questions, Dr. Schneider has submitted a separate document to ChemSAC entitled:  "Additional Information Requested by ChemSAC on Turnip Greens and Radish Leaves Varieties Grown Only for Their Edible Leaves and Current Pesticide Labels Describing Their Use and Restrictions, December 30, 2011" which addresses these two questions.  It was found that rutabaga greens, even though a Brassica spp., should remain in the leaves of root and tuber vegetable group since there are no distinct varieties of rutabagas grown just for their edible leaves.

Therefore, in summary, ChemSAC approved head lettuce, leaf lettuce, spinach, and mustard greens as representative commodities for the leafy vegetable crop group, and crop subgroup 4A - 12 leafy greens will have head lettuce, leaf lettuce, and spinach as the representative commodities which are the same as the current leafy vegetable crop subgroup 4A (leafy greens subgroup).  The current crop subgroup 5B leafy Brassica greens will be transferred to crop subgroup 4B and have mustard greens as its representative commodity.  Crop subgroup 4C was not approved and the "leaves of root and tuber, human food" subgroup should be returned to crop group 2 as a possible subgroup 2B, and the rest of crop group 2 will become the "leaves of root and tuber vegetable, livestock feed subgroup 2A" and will include the leaves of various root and tuber commodities used as livestock feed such as fodder beets (mangel beets), fodder turnips, and the forage Brassica `tyfon'.  The USDA IR-4 will address amending crop groups 1 and 2 in a future petition and will utilize these comments.

The recommended leafy vegetable crop group commodities and the two crop subgroups with their representative commodities and list of acceptable commodities in each crop subgroup is in Table 2 below:.

TABLE 2.  LIST OF CHEMSAC/PMRA APPROVED LEAFY VEGETABLE CROP GROUP/SUBGROUP, REPRESENTATIVE COMMDODITIES AND INDIVIDUAL COMMODITIES FOR EACH CROP SUBGROUP.
Crop Group / Subgroup
Recommended
Representative Commodities
Recommended Commodities
Leafy Vegetable Crop Group 4 - 12
Head lettuce, leaf lettuce, spinach, and mustard greens
(60 commodities) - Amaranth, Chinese; Amaranth, leafy;  Arugula;  Aster, Indian;  Blackjack; Broccoli raab;  Broccoli, Chinese;  Cabbage, Abyssinian;  Cabbage, seakale;  Cat's whiskers; Cham-chwi; ,Cham-na-mul;  Chervil, fresh leaves;  Chinese cabbage, bok choy;  Chipilin;  Chrysanthemum, garland;  Cilantro, fresh leaves;  Collards;  Corn salad;  Cosmos; Cress, garden;  Cress, upland;  Dandelion;  Dock;  Dol-nam-mul; Ebolo;  Endive;  Escarole; Fameflower;  Feather cockscomb ; Good King Henry;  Hanover salad;  Huauzontle;  Jute leaves;  Kale;  Lettuce, bitter; Lettuce, head;  Lettuce, leaf;  Maca;  Mizuna;  Mustard greens;  Orach;  Parsley, fresh leaves;  Plantain, buckhorn; Primrose, English; Purslane, garden;  Purslane, winter;  Radicchio;  Radish, leaves;  Rape greens;  Rocket, wild;  Shepherd's purse ; Spinach;  Spinach, Malabar;  Spinach, New Zealand; Spinach, tree; Swiss chard;  Turnip greens;  Violet, Chinese ; Watercress; Cultivars, varieties, and hybrids of these commodities
Crop Subgroup 4A.  Leafy greens
Head lettuce and Leaf lettuce and Spinach
(40 commodities) - Amaranth, Chinese; Amaranth, leafy;  Aster, Indian;  Blackjack;  Cat's whiskers;  Chervil, fresh leaves;  Cham-chwi; ,Cham-na-mul;  Chipilin;  Chrysanthemum, garland;  Cilantro, fresh leaves;  Corn salad;  Cosmos; Dandelion;  Dock;  Dol-nam-mul;  Ebolo;  Endive;  Escarole; Fameflower;  Feather cockscomb ; Good King Henry;  Huauzontle;  Jute leaves;  Lettuce, bitter; Lettuce, head;  Lettuce, leaf;  Parsley, fresh leaves;  Plantain, buckhorn; Primrose, English;  Purslane, garden;  Purslane, winter;  Radicchio;  Spinach;  Spinach, Malabar;  Spinach, New Zealand;  Spinach, tree; Swiss chard;  Tanier spinach;  Violet, Chinese; Cultivars, varieties, and hybrids of these commodities
Crop Subgroup 4B.  Brassica leafy greens
Mustard greens
(20 commodities) - Arugula;  Broccoli raab;  Broccoli, Chinese;  Cabbage, Abyssinian;  Cabbage, seakale;  Chinese cabbage, bok choy;  Collards;  Cress, garden;  Cress, upland;  Hanover salad;  Kale;  Maca;  Mizuna;  Mustard greens;  Radish, leaves;  Rape greens;  Rocket, wild; Shepherd's purse; Turnip greens;  Watercress;  Cultivars, varieties, and hybrids of these commodities.

PART ID.  IR-4 Proposal 4:"Propose a new commodity definition for edible ferns because there are too many species to list as commodities as follows:"

Dr. Schneider recommended ChemSAC consider the edible ferns commodity definition when the stalk, stem, and leaf petiole crop group proposal is reviewed (see PART IIID, IR-4 Proposal 4).

In addition, no new commodity definitions [(40 CFR § 180.1(g)] will be needed for this revised crop group.  However, there are five commodity definitions for the leafy vegetables and three for lettuce:  lettuce; lettuce, head; lettuce, leaf; and one for endive, and one for turnip tops or turnip greens.  When the leafy vegetable crop group regulation is published, there will be no need for the endive = escarole definition since they will both be listed as separate commodities in the crop group.  In addition, there will no longer a need for the turnip tops or turnip greens definition since all the commodities it covers (broccoli raab and Hanover salad) are Brassicas and will all be proposed members of the leafy Brassica greens subgroup 4B.  The three lettuce definitions are still useful in determining which lettuce varieties are considered head and/or leaf lettuce.

Also in 2002, ChemSAC approved a commodity definition for parsley to include cilantro leaves; since some tolerances have been established by RD using this commodity definition for parsley, fresh leaves to cover cilantro, fresh leaves, HED recommends that this commodity definition be added to the Federal Register.

PART II.  Review of the Analysis of the USDA IR-4 Crop Grouping Proposal to Amend the Current Crop Group 5 Brassica Leafy Vegetables, Removal of the Leafy Brassica greens subgroup, and Proposed New Brassica Head and Stem Crop Group.

There were four proposals associated with this petition.

PART IIA.  IR-4 Proposal 1:  "Amend the existing crop group in 40 CFR 180.41 (c) (5) that consists of the current head and stem Brassica subgroup with nine commodity entries to a amended crop group called "Brassica head and stem crop group 5-12 with five major commodities."

Dr. Schneider stated that based on similarities of the comparison of the proposed head and stem Brassica vegetable commodities plant morphology, cultural practices including they all are row crops, similar pest problems, edible food portions and lack of livestock feed portions, similar exposure to residues, geographical locations, processing, established tolerances, and for international harmonization purposes, I recommend that ChemSAC concur to amend the current Brassica leafy vegetable crop group 5 to a new Brassica head and stem vegetable crop group 5-12.

Dr. Schneider also agreed with IR-4 recommendations on removing Chinese broccoli to the revised Brassica leaf vegetable subgroup 4B (PART IA) because the leaf morphology of Chinese broccoli is more of a leafy nature rather than forming a tight head similar to other members of the current head and stem subgroup.  Residues in Chinese broccoli can be higher than the representative commodities of broccoli and cabbage (unpublished IR-4 data).  In addition, kohlrabi residues are often higher than broccoli or cabbage, and its exposure to residues with its exposed enlarged, bulb-like stem should be moved to the proposed stalk, stem and leafy petiole vegetable that are fully exposed to pesticides.  Dr. Schneider also agreed not to keep Chinese mustard cabbage (gai choy) as a distinct crop in the revised group since it a common name that refers to various leafy non-heading Brassica greens.  Therefore, Chinese mustard cabbage is not included in the proposed revision to the Brassica head and stem crop group 5.  Also, Dr. Schneider agreed to remove `Cavalo broccoli' from the proposed new Brassica head and stem crop group since it is the same species as cauliflower.  `Cavalo broccolo' may have been a common name applied to various types of broccoli or cauliflower in the past.

Both ChemSAC and PMRA agreed with the analysis to changes proposed for both crop group 4 and 5 in moving the current leaf petiole subgroup 4B to a new stalk, stem, and leaf petiole crop group 22 and to move the Brassica leafy greens subgroup 5B from crop group 5 to an amended crop group 4.  The current crop group has 17 commodities, and by removing the leafy Brassica greens subgroup 5B to add a new crop subgroup to the amended leafy vegetable crop group 4 (see separate leafy vegetable crop group analysis PART IB Proposal 2).  The new Brassica head and stem crop group will have five major economic crops and important for high dietary consumption.  In addition, the new Brassica head and stem group will not have any crop subgroups.

PART IIB.  IR-4 Proposal 2:  "The proposed representative commodities for the Brassica head and stem crop group 5-12 will be broccoli or cauliflower and cabbage as follows:"

Crop Group
Proposed Representative Commodities
Proposed Commodities
Brassica Head and Stem Vegetable
Crop Group 5
Broccoli or Cauliflower and Cabbage
Broccoli;  Brussels sprouts;  Cabbage, head; Cabbage, Chinese (napa);  Cauliflower

Dr. Schneider recommended ChemSAC concur to retain broccoli or cauliflower and cabbage as representative commodities for the amended Brassica head and stem crop group 5-12.  These representative commodities account for > 99% of the harvested acres for the members of this amended crop group, and are the most widely grown Brassica head and stem commodities in the U.S. with the largest acreages and geographical distribution.  The representative commodities are based on similarities in its vegetable structures, exposure to residues, and cultural practices and geographical locations, as well as their high production (both acres and yield) and consumption.  A comparison of established tolerances on the current head and stem Brassica crop subgroup 5A also supports that residue levels will be similar between members of the crop group.  Essentially, there will be no change in the required representative commodities for this crop group compared to the current Brassica head and stem subgroup 5A.  The commodity head cabbage should be just cabbage since there are no non-heading types of cabbage.

Corrected crop group, and proposed commodities:

Crop Group
Recommended Representative Commodities
Recommended Commodities
Brassica Head and Stem Vegetable Crop Group 5
Broccoli or Cauliflower and Cabbage
Broccoli;  Brussels sprouts;  Cabbage;  Cabbage, Chinese, napa;  Cauliflower

Both ChemSAC and PMRA agreed with the recommendations that broccoli or cauliflower and cabbage would be adequate representative commodities for the amended Brassica head and stem crop group 5-12, since they are identical to the current representative commodities for the Brassica head and stem subgroup 5A.

PART IIC.  IR-4 Proposal 3:  "No crop subgroups or new commodity definitions are recommended for this proposed crop group."

Dr. Schneider agreed that there is no need for any crop subgroups to the proposed Brassica head and stem vegetable crop group, since the current head and stem Brassica subgroup 5A have the same commodities and representative commodities for the amended Brassica head and stem vegetable crop group 5-12.  Both ChemSAC and PMRA agreed with the recommendation.

PART IID.  IR-4 Proposal 4:  "No new commodity definitions are recommended for this proposed crop group."

Dr. Schneider agreed with that no new commodity definitions are needed for this crop group.  However, there are currently two commodity definitions for Brassica head and stem vegetable commodities for broccoli and cabbage.  They are broccoli equal to "Broccoli, Chinese broccoli (gia lon, white flowering broccoli)" and cabbage equal to "Cabbage, Chinese cabbage (tight headed varieties only)."

When the Brassica head and stem group is published in the Federal Register there will be no need for the broccoli and the cabbage definitions.  The Chinese broccoli will be included as a lookup term in the EPA Food and Feed commodity vocabulary and broccoli will be the preferred tolerance term.  One correction to the current commodity definition is that "gia lon" spelling should be corrected to gai lon. Secondly, the cabbage definition is not needed since the Chinese cabbage tight-headed varieties, which are called napa, are included as a separate commodity in the crop group.  The commodity is listed as Cabbage, Chinese, napa in the amended crop group.  Cabbage is also a commodity in the proposed crop group.  However, since there are several established broccoli and cabbage tolerances these commodity definitions should not be deleted at this time.  Both ChemSAC and PMRA agreed that no new commodity definitions are needed for this crop group.

PART III.  Review of the Analysis of the USDA IR-4 Crop Grouping Proposal to Establish a New Crop Group 22: Stalk, Stem, and Leaf Petiole Vegetable.

There were four proposals associated with this petition.

PART IIIA. IR-4 Proposal 1: "Add a new crop group to 40 CFR 180.41 (c) as "stalk, stem and leaf petiole vegetable Crop group" with the following 18 commodities:

Proposed Commodities
Agave, Agave spp.
Asparagus, Asparagus officinalis L
Bamboo, shoots, Arundinaria spp.; Bambusa spp.
Burdock, edible, tops, Arctium lappa L.
Cardoon, Cynara cardunculus L.
Celery, Apium graveolens var. dulce (Mill.) Pers.
Celery, Chinese, Apium graveolens L. var. secalinum (Alef.) Mansf.
Celtuce, Lactuca sativa var. angustana L.H. Bailey
Fennel, Florence, Foeniculum vulgare Mill. Subsp. vulgare var. azoricum (Mill.) Thell. )
Fern, Edible (Fiddlehead)
Fuki, Petasites japonicus (Siebold & Zucc.) Maxim.
Kale, sea, Crambe maritima L.
Kohlrabi, Brassica oleracea L.var gongylodes L.
Palm hearts, various species including:  Peach Palm, Bactris gasipaes Kunth; Palmyra palm, Borassus flabellifera L., etc
Prickly pear, pads, Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill.
Prickly pear, pads, Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) Mill.
Rhubarb, Rheum x hybridum Murray
Udo, Aralia cordata Thunb.
Zuiki, Colocasia gigantea (Blume) Hook. f.

Previously ChemSAC (minutes, May 19, 2010) had agreed that combing stem and stalk vegetables into the leaf petioles subgroup 4B is a good idea, and ChemSAC agreed that the stalk, stem and petiole vegetables could be a separate crop group similar to the Codex stalk and stem group.  After review of the IR-4 petition, Dr. Schneider recommend that ChemSAC concur to approve a new stalk, stem, and leaf petiole vegetable crop group 22, based on similarities of the stalk, stem, and leaf petiole vegetables, similar cultural practices, edible food and livestock feed portions, similar plant exposure to pesticide residue levels, geographical locations, processing, food uses, established tolerances, and for international harmonization purposes.  This group will have 17 commodities; all except burdock, edible, tops and combines 10 orphan crops including agave; bamboo shoots; Chinese celery; edible ferns; fuki; sea kale, palm hearts; cactus (prickly pear, pads); udo; and zuiki to this group.  Dr. Schneider also agreed with USDA IR-4 that globe artichoke should not be a member of this new crop group stalk, stem and leaf petiole vegetables.  Globe artichoke was not included in this proposal because artichoke is not a stalk, stem, or leafy petiole, but is an immature flowerhead of the family Compositae and is morphologically dissimilar to other stalk and stem vegetables and pest problems are dissimilar.  Burdock is currently in crop group 2 (leaves of root and tuber vegetables (human food or animal feed).  While burdock, edible is proposed by IR-4 for inclusion in the stalk, stem and leaf petiole crop group, although the root is the primary part valued, the young stalks and leaves are also consumed and the peeled stem is also eaten.  Upon further consideration, it was felt that Burdock, edible leaves should remain as a member of crop group 2, leaves of root and tuber vegetables and not become a member of the proposed stalk, stem, and leaf petiole crop group 22.

In addition, Dr. Schneider recommended including edible ferns (fiddlehead) in the stalk, stem, and leaf petiole vegetable group because, although they are found for a limited time in grocery stores and included in some gourmet restaurants, they are so far rarely cultivated and are often gathered from the wild for personal consumption, and they are sold to markets and restaurants.  They have a very limited season, typically early spring for a short time as the fronds first emerge, and some of the ferns can be toxic if not harvested at the correct growth stage.  However, after consideration of current research to develop it as a crop, use in Europe, use in gourmet restaurants, and its potential as a commercial specialty crop and for international harmonization it was recommended to include ferns as a commodity in this crop group

Changes to the EPA Food and Feed Commodity vocabulary includes bamboo, shoot will be bamboo shoots because this is how the crop is listed commercially.  Palm hearts will also be listed as palm hearts with no comma since it is a marketing name.  Edible ferns will have a new commodity definition to cover all the types of edible ferns.  Prickly pear, pads will be changed to cactus to cover other edible cacti besides prickly pear.  In addition, the name of the crop group should be stalk, stem, and leaf petiole vegetable group 22 instead of stalk, stem, and leafy petiole vegetable group.  This will match the use of the term "leaf petiole" which was established as crop subgroup 4B which moved these commodities from crop subgroup 4B to the proposed stalk, stem, and leaf petiole crop group 22.  The RAC for Florence fennel should be fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk to distinguish from the commodity fennel, Florence, seed in crop group 19 herbs and spices and crop subgroup spice 19B.

Both ChemSAC and PMRA agreed to establish a stalk, stem, and leaf petiole vegetable crop 22, as discussed above.

PART IIIB.  IR-4 Proposal 2:  "The proposed representative commodities for the stalk, stem, and leaf petiole vegetable crop group 22 are asparagus and celery."

Dr. Schneider recommended ChemSAC concur to have asparagus and celery, as representative commodities for the proposed new stalk, stem, and leaf petiole group 22.  These proposed representative commodities account for >98% of the harvested acres and production for the proposed members of this group.  They are the two most widely grown stalk, stem, and leaf petiole crops in the U.S. with both the largest acreages and geographical distribution.  The representative commodities are based on similarities in vegetable morphology (stalk and stem and not leaves), and cultural practices and geographical locations, as well as their high production (both acres and yield) and consumption.  Comparisons of established tolerances on stalk, stem, and leaf petiole commodities also supports that residue levels will be similar between members of the crop group.

Both ChemSAC and PMRA agreed with the recommendation to have asparagus and celery as representative commodities to the stalk, stem, and leaf petiole group 22.

PART IIIC.  IR-4 Proposal 3:  "Propose establishing two crop subgroups 22A  -  stalk and stem subgroup with eleven commodities and 22B  -  leaf petiole subgroup with seven commodities as follows with asparagus being the representative commodity for crop subgroup 22A and celery for crop subgroup 22B as follows:

Crop Subgroup 22A. Stalk and stem subgroup - Representative commodity - asparagus:

Agave
Asparagus
Bamboo, shoots
Burdock, edible, tops
Celtuce
Fennel, Florence
Fern, edible
Kale, sea
Kohlrabi
Palm hearts
Prickly pear, pads

And

Crop Subgroup 22B. Leaf petiole subgroup  -  Representative commodity - Celery:

Cardoon
Celery
Celery, Chinese
Fuki
Rhubarb
Udo
Zuiki
"

Dr. Schneider recommends that ChemSAC approve the two proposed crop subgroups: 22A stalk and stem vegetable and 22B - leaf petiole vegetable.  The petiole vegetable subgroup name of the crop subgroup 22B leafy petiole vegetable should be leaf petiole subgroup.  This will match the use of the term leaf petiole which we have established as crop subgroup 4B which moves these commodities from crop subgroup 4B to the proposed stalk, stem, and leaf petiole crop group 22 (see table below).  For terminology purposes, the commodity name for prickly pear, pads should be changed to Cactus which would include the other edible cactus species.   Burdock, edible, tops should not be included in the stalk and stem subgroup 22A as previously discussed in PART IIIA, IR-4 Proposal 1.

The representative commodities for each of the subgroups represent over 99% of the production and are widely grown in the U.S.  The stalk and stem subgroup 22A will have asparagus as the representative of vegetables that have edible stalks and stems including celtuce and kohlrabi.  The leaf petiole subgroup 22B will have celery as the representative commodity of the other leaf petiole crops such as Chinese celery, cardoon, and rhubarb.  Comparison of tolerances for the individual members of each subgroup also supports that these two representative commodities will support the crop subgroups.

The recommended crop subgroups, representative commodities, and included commodities are shown in Table 3 below:

TABLE 3.  LIST OF CHEMSAC/PMRA APPROVED STALK, STEM, AND LEAF PETIOLE VEGETABLE CROP GROUP/SUBGROUP, REPRESENTATIVE COMMDODITIES AND INDIVIDUAL COMMODITIES FOR EACH CROP SUBGROUP.

Crop Group Subgroup
Recommended Representative  Commodities
Recommended Commodities
Stalk, Stem and Leaf Petiole  Crop Group 22
Celery and Asparagus
(17 commodities) Agave;  Asparagus;  Bamboo shoots;  Cactus;  Cardoon;  Celtuce;  Celery;  Celery, Chinese;  Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk;  Fern, edible;  Fuki;  Kale, sea;  Kohlrabi;  Palm hearts;  Rhubarb;  Udo;  Zuiki
22A.  Stalk and Stem Vegetable
Asparagus
(10 commodities) Agave;  Asparagus;  Bamboo shoots;  Cactus;  Celtuce;  Fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and stalk;  Fern, edible,  Kale, sea;  Kohlrabi;  Palm hearts
22B.  Leaf Petiole Vegetable
Celery
(7 commodities) Cardoon;  Celery;  Celery, Chinese;  Fuki;  Rhubarb;  Udo;  Zuiki

Both ChemSAC and PMRA agreed with the recommendation to establish the two subgroups, Subgroup 22A and Subgroup 22B.

PART IIID.  IR-4 Proposal 4:  "A New Commodity Definition for Edible ferns is recommended."

Dr. Schneider recommends that ChemSAC approve the edible fern commodity definition, so that the various types of edible ferns can be easily distinguishable and defined.  The edible commodity fern definition is as follows:
"
(A) General Category
(B) Specific Commodities
Fern, edible
Fern, edible; Fiddlehead including:  Black lady fern, Deparia japonica (Thunb.) M. Kato; Bracken fern, Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn; Broad buckler fern, Dryopteris dilatata (Hoffm.) A. Gray; Cinnamon fern, Osmundastrum cinnamomeum (L.) C. Presl; Lady fern, Athyrium filix-femina (L.) Roth ex Mert.; Leather fern, Acrostichum aureum L.; Mother fern, Diplazium proliferum (Lam.) Thouars; Ostrich fern, Matteuccia struthiopteris (L.) Tod.; Vegetable fern, Diplazium esculentum (Retz.) Sw.; Zenmai fern, Osmuda japonica Thunb.
"
It was also recommended to establish a new commodity definition for palm heart so that the various palm heart varieties can be easily distinguishable and defined, and the crop group commodity table would be decreased in size.  The palm hearts commodity definition is as follows:
"
(A) General Category
(B) Specific Commodities
Palm hearts
Palm hearts, various species including: Peach Palm, Bactris gasipaes Kunth; Palmyra palm, Borassus flabellifera L.; African fan palm, Borassus aethiopum Mart.; Coconut, Cocos nucifera L.; Cabbage palm, Euterpe oleracea Mart.; Wine palm, Raphia spp.; Royal palm, Roystonea oleracea (Jacq.) O.F. Cook; Salak palm, Salacca zalacca (Gaertn.) Voss; Saw palmetto, Serenoa repens (W. Bartram) Small; Cabbage palmetto, Sabal palmetto (Walter) Schult. & Schult. f.
"
In addition, there is a current commodity definition for celery that ChemSAC had approved a revision to add Chinese celery to the commodity definition for celery as follows (ChemSAC (Reviewer's Guide and Summary of HED ChemSAC Approvals for Amending Commodity Definitions [40 CFR 180.1(h)] and crop group/subgroups [40 CFR 180.41], Schneider, B., 6/14/02):
"
(A) General Category
(B) Specific Commodities
Celery
Celery, Florence fennel (sweet anise, sweet fennel, finochio) (fresh leaves and stalks only), Chinese celery.
"
With the proposed establishment of a new crop group for stalk, stem, and leaf petiole vegetables, the need for a celery commodity definition to cover Chinese celery is negated since the proposed leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22C has celery as the representative commodity that covers Chinese celery.  In addition, Florence fennel, fresh leaves and stalks has been shown in this petition to fit closer to the stem and stalk subgroup 22A with asparagus as the representative commodity.  Celery is the proposed representative commodity for crop subgroup 22B leaf petiole.  Therefore, HED recommends deleting the commodity definition for celery as part of the establishment of the stalk, stem, and leaf petiole vegetable crop group.  However, to avoid confusion from current celery tolerances, HED has no objection to not deleting this commodity definition at this time.

ChemSAC and PMRA agreed with the commodity definition changes.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63987-63988]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26621]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fifty-Fifth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 186: Automatic
Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 186: Automatic Dependent
Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 186: Automatic Dependent
Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B).

DATES: The meeting will be held October 28, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the RTCA Conference Rooms, 1150
18th Street, NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036,<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 186, Automatic Dependent
Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) meeting. The agenda will include:

Specific Working Group Sessions

October 24th, 2011

 All Day, WG-4 Application Technical Requirements, MacIntosh-
NBAA Room & Colson Board Room.

October 25th, 2011

 All Day, WH-4, This day only at NBAA, 1200 18th Street, NW.,
4th Floor, Washington, DC 20036.

October 26th, 2011

 All Day, WG-4, Application Technical Requirements, MacIntosh-
NBAA Room and Colson Board Room.

October 27th, 2011

 All Day, WG-3 and EUROCAE WG-51, SG-1--DO-260B/ED-102A
Corrigendum-1, MacIntosh-NBAA Room.

October 27th, 2011

 All Day, WG-4, Application Technical Requirements, Colson
Board Room.

October 27th, 2011

 All Day, WG-5--DO-282B Corrigendum-1, Joint Meeting with WG-3/
SG-1. MacIntosh-NBAA Room.

October 28th, 2011

 Plenary Session (8 a.m.).

Agenda--Plenary Session--Agenda

October 28, 2011

**Joint Session With EUROCAE Working Group 51

RTCA--Washington, DC--MacIntosh-NBAA Room & Hilton--ATA Room

 Chairman's Introductory Remarks.
 Review of Meeting Agenda.
 Review and Approval of the 54th Meeting Summary, RTCA Paper
No. 112-11/SC186-309.
 Document Approval: DO-317A/ED-xxx--Aircraft Surveillance
Application (ASA) System MOPS.
 Document Approval: Corrigendum-1 for DO-260B/ED-102A--1090MHz
Extended Squitter MOPS.
 Document Approval: Corrigendum-1 for DO-282B--Universal Access
Transceiver (UAT) MOPS.
 Document Approval: Supplement for DO-312--SPR/INTEROP for
ATSA-ITP.
 Flight-deck Interval Management (FIM) MOPS Scope Proposal.
 ADS-B IM Coordination with SC-214/WG-78 for Data Link Rqts--
Discussion--Status.
 FAA Surveillance and Broadcast Services (SBS) Program--Status.
 Working Group Reports.
    a. WG-1--Operations and Implementation:
     TSAA OSED
    b. WG-2--TIS-B MASPS--no report.
    c. WG-3--1090 MHz MOPS--(See agenda item #5.).
    d. WG-4--Application Technical Requirements--(See agenda item #4.).
    e. WG-5--UAT MOPS--(See agenda item #6.).
    f. WG-6--Combined ADS-B & ASA

MASPS:
     MASPS Development Status & Schedule.
 Date, Place and Time of Next Meeting.
 New Business.
 Other Business.
 Review Action Items/Work Programs.
 Adjourn Plenary Session.

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6, 2011.
Robert L. Bostiga,
Manager, RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2011-26621 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 81 (Monday, April 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 23346]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09598]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC; Docket No. NJ14-22-000]

Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 3, 2014, Oncor Electric Delivery Company
LLC submitted its tariff filing per 35.28(e): Oncor TFO Tariff Rate
Changes, effective September 12, 2013.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for 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>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 6, 2014.

    Dated: April 22, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09598 Filed 4-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 180)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56943-56946]
[DOCID:fr17se10-27]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0614-201036; FRL-9203-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Extension of
Attainment Date for the Atlanta, GA 1997 8-Hour Ozone Moderate
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The State of Georgia, through the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources (GA DNR), submitted a letter on June 9, 2010, with a
request for EPA to grant a one-year extension of the attainment date
for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for the Atlanta, Georgia Area (hereafter referred to as the
``Atlanta Area''). The Atlanta Area consists of Barrow, Bartow,
Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette,
Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale,
Spalding, and Walton Counties. In today's action, EPA is proposing to
determine that the State of Georgia has met the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act) requirements to obtain a one-year extension to its attainment
date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. As a result,
EPA is proposing to approve a one-year extension of the 1997 8-hour
ozone moderate attainment date for the Atlanta Area. Specifically, EPA
is proposing to extend the Atlanta Area's attainment date from June 15,
2010, to June 15, 2011.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0614 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0614'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0614. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Spann or Sara Waterson,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Spann can also be reached via

electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ms. Waterson may be reached by
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Today's Action
III. EPA's Analysis of the State's Requests for an Attainment Date
Extension for the Atlanta Area for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
IV. Proposed Actions
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of
0.08 parts per million (ppm). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part
50, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of
the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air
quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e.,
0.084 ppm when rounding is considered) (69 FR 23857, April 30,
2004).\1\ Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period
must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality
monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90
percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness
as determined in Appendix I of part 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA issued a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2008. EPA
subsequently reconsidered the 2008 NAAQS, and proposed a new 8-hour
ozone NAAQS on January 19, 2010 (75 FR 2938). Final 8-hour ozone
NAAQS are expected to be effective in October 2010. The current
proposed action, however, is being taken with regard to the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Requirements for the Atlanta Area for the 2010 8-
hour ozone NAAQS will be addressed in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS,
based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the
conclusion of the designation process. The Atlanta Are a was designated
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2004
(effective June 15, 2004) using 2001-2003 ambient air quality data (69
FR 23857, April 30, 2004). At the time of designation the Atlanta Area
was classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. In the April 30, 2004, Phase I Ozone Implementation Rule,
EPA established ozone nonattainment area attainment dates based on
Table 1 of Section 181(a) of the CAA. This established an attainment
date 3 years after the June 15, 2004, effective date for areas
classified as marginal areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment
designations. Therefore, the Atlanta Area's original attainment date
was June 15, 2007. (See 69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004.)
    The Atlanta Area failed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by
June 15, 2007 (the applicable attainment date for marginal
nonattainment areas), and did not qualify for any extension of the
attainment date as a marginal area. As a consequence of this failure,
on March 6, 2008, EPA published a rulemaking determining that the
Atlanta Area failed to attain and, consistent with Section 181(b)(2) of
the CAA, the Atlanta Area was reclassified by operation of law to the
next highest classification, or ``moderate'' nonattainment. (See 72 FR
58572, October 16, 2007.) When an area is reclassified, a new
attainment date for the reclassified area must be established. Section
181 of the CAA explains that the attainment date for moderate
nonattainment areas shall be as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than six years after designation, or June 15, 2010. EPA further
required that Georgia submit the SIP revisions meeting the new moderate
area requirements as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
December 31, 2008. Georgia submitted SIP revisions to address the
moderate area requirements for the Atlanta Area on October 21, 2009.
EPA is in the process of reviewing these submissions and will take
action on these submissions in rulemaking separate from today's
proposed action.
    Under certain circumstances, the CAA allows for extensions of the
attainment dates prescribed at the time of the original nonattainment
designation. See below for further discussion.

B. CAA Requirements for One-Year Extension Requests

    Section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the Administrator, within six months
of the attainment date, to determine whether an ozone nonattainment
area attained the NAAQS. CAA Section 181(b)(2)(A) states that, for
areas classified as marginal, moderate, or serious, if the
Administrator determines that the area did not attain the standard by
its attainment date, the area must be reclassified to the next
classification. However, in accordance with CAA Section 181(a)(5), EPA
may grant up to 2 one-year extensions of the attainment date under
specified conditions. Specifically, Section 181(a)(5) states:
    ``Upon application by any State, the Administrator may extend for 1
additional year (hereinafter referred to as the ''Extension Year'') the
date specified in table 1 of paragraph (1) of this subsection if--
    (A) The State has complied with all requirements and commitments
pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan, and
    (B) no more than 1 exceedance of the national ambient air quality
standard level for ozone has occurred in the area in the year preceding
the Extension Year.''

With regard to the first element, ``applicable implementation plan'' is
defined in Section 302(q) of the CAA as, the portion (or portions) of
the implementation plan, or most recent revision thereof, which has
been approved under Section 110, or promulgated under Section 110(c),
or promulgated or approved pursuant to regulations promulgated under
Section 301(d) and which implements the relevant requirements of the
CAA.
    The language in Section 181(a)(5)(B) reflects the form of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, which is exceedance based and does not reflect the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which is concentration based. Because Section
181(a)(5)(B) does not reflect the form of the 8-hour NAAQS and
application would produce an absurd result, EPA interprets this
provision in a manner consistent with Congressional intent but
reflecting the form of the 1997 8-hour NAAQS. Therefore, EPA adopted an
interpretation of Sections 172(a)(2)(C) and 181(a)(5) that an area will
be eligible for the first of the one-year extensions under the 8-hour
NAAQS if, for the attainment year, the area's 4th highest daily 8-hour
average is 0.084 ppm or less.\2\ The area will be eligible for the
second extension if the area's 4th highest daily 8-hour value averaged
over both the original attainment year and the first extension year is
0.084 ppm or less. No more than 2 one-year extensions may be issued for
a single nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 40 CFR 51.907. The preamble language can be found in the
Phase 1 Implementation Rule 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA interprets the CAA and implementing regulations to allow the
granting of a one-year extension under the following minimum
conditions: (1) The State requests a one-year extension; (2) all
requirements and commitments in the EPA-approved SIP for the area have
been complied with; and (3) the area has a 4th highest daily 8-hour
average of 0.084 ppm or less for the attainment year (or an area's 4th
highest daily 8-hour value averaged over both the original attainment
year and the first extension year is 0.084 ppm or less, if

a second one-year extension is requested).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 40 CFR 51.907. The preamble language can be found in the
Phase 1 Implementation Rule 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Today's Actions

    EPA is proposing to determine that Georgia has met the CAA
requirements to obtain a one-year extension of the attainment date for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. As a result, EPA is
proposing to extend the Atlanta Area's attainment date from June 15,
2010, to June 15, 2011, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's proposed
action is based upon complete, quality assured, quality controlled, and
certified ambient air monitoring data for 2009, and on EPA's
preliminary determination that the State is meeting its federally-
approved state implementation plan. If today's proposed action is
finalized, the Atlanta Area's attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS will be extended one-year from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011.

III. EPA's Analysis of the State's Requests for an Attainment Date
Extension for the Atlanta Area for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    As was explained above in this rulemaking, EPA interprets the CAA
and implementing regulations to allow the granting of a one-year
extension under the following minimum conditions: (1) The State
requests a one-year extension; (2) all requirements and commitments in
the EPA-approved SIP for the area have been complied with; and (3) the
area has a 4th highest daily 8-hour average of 0.084 ppm or less for
the attainment year (or an area's 4th highest daily 8-hour value
averaged over both the original attainment year and the first extension
year is 0.084 ppm or less, if a second one-year extension is
requested). Below provides EPA's analysis of how Georgia has met these
minimum requirements.

(1) The State Requests a One-Year Extension

    The State of Georgia, through GA DNR, submitted a letter on June 9,
2010, requesting that EPA grant a one-year extension of the attainment
date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Atlanta Area. The letter
contained a certification that the State is complying with all
requirements and commitments pertaining to the Atlanta Area in the
applicable implementation plan; and that the Atlanta Area has a 4th
highest daily 8-hour average of 0.084 ppm or less for the attainment
year (i.e., 2009) for this initial request for an extension. EPA's
analysis of the certification from Georgia, and of the ambient air
quality monitoring data for the Atlanta Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS (i.e., in relation to the State's attainment date extension
request) is provided below.

(2) All Requirements and Commitments in the EPA-Approved SIP for the
Area Have Been Complied With

    In the letter submitted by GA DNR, on June 9, 2010, the State
discusses implementation of state measures in the SIP. One of the
required elements for a one-year extension required under Section
181(a)(5) of the CAA is that the State has complied with all
requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable
implementation plan (as that term is defined in Section 302(q) of the
CAA). EPA has conducted an independent review of whether Georgia is in
compliance with the applicable implementation plan for the Atlanta Area
as intended by Section 181(a)(5)(A) of the CAA, and has made the
preliminary determination that the State is in compliance. This
preliminary determination is based on EPA's belief that the state is
currently meeting the EPA-approved state implementation plan for the
Atlanta Area.
    On October 21, 2009, the State of Georgia submitted SIP revisions
to address the requirements related to the 1997 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration for the Atlanta Area. Nonetheless, EPA does not and did
not view submission or approval of this attainment demonstration as
relevant for meeting the ``applicable implementation plan'' for the
Atlanta Area with regard to Section 181(a)(5)(A) of the CAA. EPA is
currently reviewing the approvability of this attainment demonstration
submission and will make a final determination on the approvability
through a separate rulemaking in the Federal Register.

(3) The Area Has a 4th Highest Daily 8-Hour Average of 0.084 ppm or
Less for the Attainment Year

    In the letter submitted by GA DNR, on June 9, 2010, the State has
certified that the 4th highest daily 8-hour average ozone concentration
for the Atlanta Area in 2009 was below 0.084 ppm, and that the 2009
ozone data which are included in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) meets
necessary quality control and quality assurance requirements. Table 1
provides the 2009 4th highest concentrations at the monitors in the
Atlanta Area.

                          Table 1--2009 4th Highest Concentrations for the Atlanta Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                2009 4th highest
               Monitoring site ID                               City, county                concentration (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13-067-0003.....................................  Kennesaw, Cobb.........................                  0.076
13-077-0002.....................................  Coweta.................................                  0.065
13-089-0002.....................................  Decatur, DeKalb........................                  0.077
13-097-0004.....................................  Douglasville, Douglas..................                  0.072
13-121-0055.....................................  Atlanta, Fulton........................                  0.077
13-135-0002.....................................  Lawrenceville, Gwinnett................                  0.073
13-151-0002.....................................  McDonough, Henry.......................                  0.074
13-223-0003.....................................  Paulding...............................                  0.067
13-247-0001.....................................  Conyers, Rockdale......................                  0.070
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS ambient air quality
monitoring data for the Atlanta Area, consistent with the requirements
contained in 40 CFR part 50 and as recorded in the EPA AQS database. On
the basis of that review, EPA has preliminarily concluded that for the
attainment year, 2009, the Atlanta Area's 4th highest daily 8-hour
average concentration was 0.077 ppm which is below the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS of 0.08 ppm (effectively 0.084 ppm).
    Because the statutory provisions have been satisfied, EPA is
proposing

approval of Georgia's attainment date extension request for the Atlanta
Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's June 9, 2010, request for EPA
to grant a one-year extension (from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011) of
the Atlanta Area attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
because EPA believes that Georgia has met the statutory requirements
for such an extension. EPA's belief is based on its preliminary
determination that the state is in compliance of the requirements and
commitments associated with the EPA-approved implementation plan, and
on the belief that the 4th highest daily 8-hour ozone average
concentration for 2009 for the Atlanta Area is below the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS as required by the CAA. As provided in 40 CFR 51.907, if
EPA finalizes this action, it will extend, by one year, the deadline by
which the Atlanta Area must attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It will
also extend the timeframe by which EPA must make an attainment
determination for the area. EPA notes that this proposed action only
relates to the initial one- year extension. As noted in Section
181(a)(5) of the CAA, areas may qualify for up to 2 one-year
extensions. If requested at a future date, EPA will make a
determination of the appropriateness of a second one-year extension for
the Atlanta Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in a separate
rulemaking.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve SIP
submissions and requests that comply with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing the state's request for an extension of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS attainment date for the Atlanta Area, EPA's role is to
approve the state's request, provided that it meets the criteria of the
CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves a state request
for an extension of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment date as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub.L.104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: September 3, 2010.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2010-23317 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14189-14191]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IA-4046/803-00224]

T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. and T. Rowe Price International
Ltd; Notice of Application

March 12, 2015.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application for an exemptive order under Section 206A
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Advisers Act'') and Rule
206(4)-5(e) thereunder.

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

    Applicant: T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. (``TRPA'') and T. Rowe
Price International Ltd (``TRPIL'' and, together with TRPA, the
``Advisers'' or the ``Applicants'').
    Relevant Advisers Act Sections: Exemption requested under Section
206A of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-5(e) thereunder from Rule
206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Advisers Act.
    Summary of Application: The Applicants request that the Commission
issue an order under Section 206A of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-
5(e) thereunder exempting them from Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the
Advisers Act to permit Applicants to receive compensation from certain
government entities for investment advisory services provided to the
government entities within the two-year period following a contribution
by a covered associate of the Applicants to an official of the
government entities.

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on May 6, 2014, and an
amended and restated application was filed on October 29, 2014.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on April 6, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers,
a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Advisers Act,
hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any
facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the
reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons may request
notification of a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants,
TRPA and TRPIL, T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., 100 East Pratt Street,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kyle R. Ahlgren, Senior Counsel, or
Melissa R. Harke, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of
Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the

application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site either at http://www.sec.gov/rules/iareleases.shtml or by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicant's Representations

    1. The Applicants are registered with the Commission as investment
advisers under the Advisers Act. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (``TRPG'')
is the parent company of both Applicants. The Applicants serve as
adviser or subadviser to companies that are registered with the
Commission as investment companies (``RICs'') under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``1940 Act''). In addition, TRPIL acts as an
adviser to the T. Rowe Price Trust Company (``TRPTC'') in connection
with assets of defined contribution and benefit plans of companies and
governmental entities that are invested in the Emerging Markets Equity
Trust Fund, a common trust fund exempt under Section 3(c)(11) of the
1940 Act and of which TRPTC is the Trustee (the ``Fund''). Certain
public pension plans that are government entities of Wisconsin (the
``Clients'') have selected a RIC as an investment option for
participants in participant-directed plans. One Client had been
invested in the Fund since 2003 but divested its investment by May
2012. The investment decisions for the Clients are overseen by boards
of trustees, and Gubernatorial appointees sit on these boards. Due to
this power of appointment, the Governor is an ``official'' of each
Client under Rule 206(4)-5(f)(6)(ii). The Governor, however, does not
sit on any Client's board or have any direct involvement in any
Client's investment decisions.
    2. Applicants represent that Michael McGonigle (the
``Contributor'') is a Vice President of TRPG and TRPA. He has been a
director of credit research in the Fixed Income Division since 2010 and
is a member of the Fixed Income Steering Committee. In his role as a
director of credit research, he supervises approximately 15 research
analysts in TRPA and eight research analysts in TRPIL, some of whom may
occasionally meet with government entity clients or prospective
clients, or with consultants for prospective clients. The Contributor
is, therefore, a ``covered associate'' of TRPA and TRPIL, as defined in
Rule 206(4)-5(f)(2)(ii). The Advisers have identified only one meeting
with a Wisconsin government entity client at which an analyst
supervised by the Contributor was present since March 14, 2011, the
effective date of Rule 206(4)-5 (the ``Rule''). The Contributor has not
participated in any such meetings with any state or local government
entity client or prospective client of the Advisers since the effective
date of the Rule.
    3. The recipient of the Contribution was Scott Walker (the
``Official''), the Governor of Wisconsin, who took office in January
2011. The Contribution was made on February 5, 2012 to the Official's
recall primary election campaign for the amount of $250 (the
``Contribution''). The Wisconsin Campaign Finance Information System
reported it as received by the campaign on February 26, 2012. Although
not entitled to vote in Wisconsin elections, the Contributor was
interested in the highly contentious and publicized recall election,
given his political views that are in line with those of the Official.
The Contributor remembers watching television coverage of the recall
election and receiving telephone solicitations for political
contributions during this time. To the best of the Contributor's
recollection, he made the Contribution pursuant to such a telephone
solicitation. The Contributor has never met the Official or dealt with
the Official in any capacity. The Contributor has never solicited or
coordinated any contributions for or on behalf of the Official. The
Contribution is consistent with other political contributions made by
the Contributor (which were made prior to the effective date of the
Rule).
    4. Applicants represent that the Clients' relationship with the
Applicants pre-dates the Contribution. The Adviser's relationship with
one Client dates back to at least 2003 when the Client invested in the
Fund. This Client began withdrawing its investment from the Fund in
2011 and was fully divested in May 2012. The Clients with a RIC advised
by the Advisers began their relationship with the Advisers in 2005 and
2008.
    5. Applicants represent that at no time did any employees of the
Applicants other than the Contributor have any knowledge of the
Contribution prior to the Applicants' legal department's discovery of
the Contribution. The Contribution was discovered in the course of
compliance testing by the Advisers' legal department on or around March
18, 2014. Subsequently, the Applicants and the Contributor obtained the
Official's agreement to return the full amount of the Contribution,
which was returned on May 1, 2014. After identifying the Contribution,
the Advisers established an escrow account and deposited in the account
an amount equal to the sum of all fees paid to the Advisers, directly
or indirectly, with respect to the Clients between February 5, 2012
through February 26, 2014. The Advisers have notified the Client
invested in the Fund, each affected RIC, and each Client that offers as
an investment option in a participant-directed plan an affected RIC
that is directly advised by the Advisers, of the Contribution and the
resulting two-year prohibition on compensation absent exemptive relief
from the Commission. The Advisers have informed such Clients and each
affected RIC that the fees attributable to the Clients since the date
of the Contribution through the two-year period were being placed in
escrow and that, absent exemptive relief from the Commission, those
fees would be distributed in a way that is permissible under applicable
laws and the Rule.
    6. Applicants represent that the Advisers' policies and procedures
regarding pay-to-play (``Pay-to-Play Policies and Procedures'') in
place at the time of the Contribution required all employees to pre-
clear contributions to state and local officials and candidates.
Employees must annually certify their compliance with the Advisers'
Code of Ethics, which describes the Advisers' preclearance policy for
political contributions, through an Annual Verification Questionnaire
(the ``Questionnaire''). The Questionnaire requires employees to
certify their compliance with the Policy. The Contributor has completed
his annual online training and Questionnaire certification each year
since the effective date of the Rule. The legal department or specific
business units of the Advisers also occasionally send reminder emails
about the Policy. The Advisers have also started to include searches of
public Web sites for contributions made by employees, and it was in the
course of developing this testing program that the Contribution was
discovered by the Advisers.
    7. Applicants represent that to the best of the Contributor's
recollection, the Contributor's violation of Applicant's Pay-to-Play
Policies and Procedures resulted from his simply forgetting to pre-
clear his contribution as required, due to his becoming impassioned
about the recall election while watching televised reports about it and
receiving a telephone solicitation while doing so. Applicants note that
on May 31, 2012, pursuant to the Advisers' policies and procedures, the
Contributor requested pre-clearance from Advisers' legal department to
make a contribution to the Official's campaign for the recall general
election and received permission to make a $150 contribution.

As noted above, however, the Contributor did not disclose the
Contribution to the Applicants and the Applicants had no knowledge of
the Contribution when the Contributor received approval for the May 31,
2012 contribution for the recall general election.

Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) under the Advisers Act prohibits a
registered investment adviser from providing investment advisory
services for compensation to a government entity within two years after
a contribution to an official of the government entity is made by the
investment adviser or any covered associate of the investment adviser.
Each Client is a ``government entity,'' as defined in rule 206(4)-
5(f)(5), the Contributor is a ``covered associate'' as defined in rule
206(4)-5(f)(2), and the Official is an ``official'' as defined in rule
206(4)-5(f)(6). Rule 206(4)-5(c) provides that when a government entity
invests in a covered investment pool, the investment adviser to that
covered investment pool is treated as providing advisory services
directly to the government entity. The RICs and the Funds are ``covered
investment pools,'' as defined in rule 206(4)-5(f)(3).
    2. Section 206A of the Advisers Act grants the Commission the
authority to ``conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person or
transaction . . . from any provision or provisions of [the Advisers
Act] or of any rule or regulation thereunder, if and to the extent that
such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of [the Advisers Act].''
    3. Rule 206(4)-5(e) provides that the Commission may exempt an
investment adviser from the prohibition under Rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) upon
consideration of the factors listed below, among others:
    (1) Whether the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Advisers
Act;
    (2) Whether the investment adviser: (i) Before the contribution
resulting in the prohibition was made, adopted and implemented policies
and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of the rule;
and (ii) prior to or at the time the contribution which resulted in
such prohibition was made, had no actual knowledge of the contribution;
and (iii) after learning of the contribution: (A) Has taken all
available steps to cause the contributor involved in making the
contribution which resulted in such prohibition to obtain a return of
the contribution; and (B) has taken such other remedial or preventive
measures as may be appropriate under the circumstances;
    (3) Whether, at the time of the contribution, the contributor was a
covered associate or otherwise an employee of the investment adviser,
or was seeking such employment;
    (4) The timing and amount of the contribution which resulted in the
prohibition;
    (5) The nature of the election (e.g., federal, state or local); and
    (6) The contributor's apparent intent or motive in making the
contribution which resulted in the prohibition, as evidenced by the
facts and circumstances surrounding such contribution.
    4. The Applicants request an order pursuant to section 206A and
rule 206(4)-5(e), exempting them from the two-year prohibition on
compensation imposed by rule 206(4)-5(a)(1) with respect to investment
advisory services provided to the Clients within the two-year period
following the Contribution.
    5. The Applicants submit that the exemption is necessary and
appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and
provisions of the Act. The Applicants further submit that the other
factors set forth in Rule 206(4)-5 similarly weigh in favor of granting
an exemption to the Applicants to avoid consequences disproportionate
to the violation. The Applicants note that causing the Advisers to
serve without compensation for a two-year period could result in a
financial loss that is approximately 24,000 times the amount of the
Contribution.
    6. The Applicants represent that neither the Advisers nor the
Contributor sought to interfere with the Clients' merit-based selection
process for advisory services, nor did they seek to negotiate higher
fees or greater ancillary benefits than would be achieved in arms'-
length transactions. The Applicants note that the Advisers'
relationship with the Clients pre-date the Contribution, and that one
Client divested its investment in the Fund shortly after the
Contribution. The Applicants represent that they have no reason to
believe that the Contribution undermined the integrity of the market
for advisory services or resulted in a violation of the public trust in
the process for awarding contracts.
    7. The Applicants note that the Advisers adopted and implemented
pay-to-play policies and procedures on the Rule's effective date, March
14, 2011 that are fully compliant with the Rule's requirements. The
Applicants further note that the Advisers began developing compliance
testing that includes random searches of public campaign databases for
contributions by employees. The Applicants represent that at no time
did any employees of the Advisers other than the Contributor have any
actual knowledge that the Contribution had been made prior to its
discovery by the Advisers in March 2014. The Applicants further
represent that the Advisers and the Contributor obtained the Official's
agreement to return the Contribution, which was subsequently returned,
and the Advisers established an escrow account for all fees
attributable to the Clients' relationships with the Advisers accrued
between February 5, 2012 and February 26, 2014.
    8. The Applicants state that the Contributor's apparent intent in
making the Contribution was not to influence the selection or retention
of the Advisers, and that the Contribution was consistent with prior
political donations made by the Contributor in support of other
candidates who share the political views of the Official.
    9. The Applicants represent that the Contributor has had no direct
contact or involvement with any of the Clients, and that the
Contributor's only indirect involvement with one of the Clients was
through a single meeting at which a research analyst who reported to
the Contributor met with the Client.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06110 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44689-44690]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18883]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Operating
Requirements: Commuter and On-Demand Operation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The revision of this collection involves the amendment of
regulations, which allows a certificate holder's pilots to log second-
in-command (SIC) time in operations that does not otherwise require a
SIC. This revision also removes the burden for initial certification as
that is already counted under ICR 2120-0593.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected], or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of

information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden
could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected
information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in
the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0039
    Title: Operating Requirements: Commuter and On-Demand Operation
    Form Numbers: N/A.
    Type of Review: This is a revision of an existing information
collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on June 14, 2018 (83 FR 27822). On June 27, 2018, the FAA
published the final rule Regulatory Relief, Aviation Training devices;
Pilot Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions
(83 FR 30232). In that rule, the FAA is amending Sec.  135.99 by adding
paragraph (c) to allow a certificate holder to receive approval of a
second-in-command (SIC) professional development program (SIC PDP) via
operations specifications (Ops Specs) to allow the certificate holder's
pilots to log SIC time in operations conducted under part 135 in an
airplane or operation that does not otherwise require a SIC. As
explained in the rule, the FAA believes that a comprehensive SIC PDP
will provide opportunities for beneficial flight experience that may
not otherwise exist and also provide increased safety in operations for
those flights conducted in a multicrew environment. The FAA is
establishing requirements in Sec.  135.99(c) for certificate holders,
airplanes, and flightcrew members during operations conducted under an
approved SIC PDP. Those changes are reflected in this information
collection.
    The FAA is also changing certain logging requirements to enable the
logging of SIC time obtained under a SIC PDP. Those changes are
reflected in a revision to information collection 2120-0021.
    Respondents: Operators who currently possess an FAA approved PIC or
SIC training program could revise and utilize those existing programs
to qualify their pilots seeking approval to log SIC time. Those
operators that do not already possess an approved PIC/SIC training
program (that must include crew resource management training) would be
required to submit a proposed new SIC training program for FAA
approval. This would be amending an existing part 119 certificate. As
of September 28, 2017 the FAA estimates that there were approximately
457 part 135 operators with single engine turbine-powered airplanes or
multiengine airplanes that would qualify or actually pursue the
authorization to conduct a SIC professional development program.
    The FAA estimates that approximately 20 operators would be required
to submit a newly developed SIC Professional Development Training
Program for approval in the first year that the program is available.
The FAA estimates that 50 operators will request an amendment to their
existing PIC/SIC training program. This time burden is reflected in
Sec.  135.325, Training program and revision.
    Frequency: As needed.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Section 135.99(c) permits a
certificate holder to seek approval of an SIC professional development
program via issuance of operations specifications (Ops Specs) to allow
the certificate holder's pilots to log SIC time. Under an approved SIC
professional development program, pilots may log SIC time in part 135
operations conducted in multiengine airplanes and single engine
turbine-powered airplanes that do not otherwise require an SIC, if
those pilots: (1) Meet certification, training, and qualification
requirements for pilots in part 135 operations, and (2) serve under the
supervision of a part 135 PIC who meets certain experience
requirements.
    The FAA estimates that 20 operators will take approximately 40
hours each to develop and submit an acceptable new SIC training
program. This program change will result in a burden increase of 800
hours in the first year of information collection only.
    The FAA estimates that 50 operators will take approximately 20
hours each to revise and submit an acceptable SIC training program.
This program change will result in a burden increase of 1,000 hours.
    The new or revised SIC training program will result in a burden of
1,800 total hours in the first year of information collection.
    In addition, the FAA has revised the burden in section 135.325 to
remove the calculation of the burden for new applicants (for initial
approval of training programs); this burden should not be reflected in
this collection as it is already addressed in a previously approved
collection (2120-0593 Certification: Air Carriers and Commercial
Operators--FAR Part 119). This change is necessary to avoid double-
counting the burden.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The overall burden for part 135 was
previously estimated at 1,154,674 hours. With the removal of the
initial certification burden already accounted for in the part 119
statement, addition of the SIC training program development and
approval burden, the total new annual reduced burden estimate is
1,314,814 hours. This is a reduction of 160,140 hours from the previous
estimate.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 23, 2018.
Barbara Hall,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-18883 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request  EPA/ Office of Solid Waste/ Office of Emergency and Remedial Response 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2 0 5 0  0 0 8 6 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title  Continuous Release Reporting Regulations ( CRRR) under CERCLA 1980 ( Renewal).

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA No. 1445.06 9. Keywords  CERCLA, Environmental protection, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Hazardous substances, Continuous releases, National Response Center, Reportable Quantity.

10. Abstract  The Continuous Release Reporting Regulations Requirements program provides relief from per occurrence notification requirements of CERCLA Section 103( a) for hazardous substance releases that are " continuous," and " stable in quantity and rate," and for which notification has been given " for a period sufficient to establish the continuity, quantity, and regularity" of the release.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Individuals or households d. X Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. X Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 3,276 b. Total annual responses 25,657 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0% c. Total hours requested 284,154 d. Current OMB inventory 249,451 e. Difference 34,703 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment ___________ 34,703________ 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 86 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 86 d. Current OMB inventory $ 76 e. Difference $ 10 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change $ 0 2. Adjustment $ 10 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Application for benefits e. X Program planning or management b. X Program evaluation f. X Research c. General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Lynn M. Beasley Phone: ( 703) 603 9086 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Craig Matthiessen, Acting Director Regulation and Policy Development Staff Office of Emergency Management Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Joseph A. Sierra, Acting Associate Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95