IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER:

This OMB form has been recreated in WP6.0 by OPPTS staff. The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attention to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task:

 Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise you'll have to delete a space for each letter you add.

 Use the same font ( Times New Roman 8pt).

 Do not change table lines ( although you can delete an extra space line to provide more space elsewhere.

 It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5.1, so the text will scramble.

If you have any problems or questions, please call your RID Desk Officer @ 260 2706. 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 Environmental Protection Agency/ ORD/ NERL 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2 0 8 0  0 0 0 5 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. GU Revision of a currently approved collection c. G 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. GU 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 GU No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. GU Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /

7. Title Application for Reference and Equivalent Method Determination 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable)

0559.09 9. Keywords Air pollution control, environmental protection, ambient air monitoring methods, reference & equivalent methods 10. Abstract The proposed amendments would revise the requirements for applications for reference and equivalent methods in 40 CFR Part 53. These applications are submitted by manufacturers or vendors of air pollutant monitoring devices or methods; State agencies, or federal agencies who seek to have such devices or methods approved by EPA for use in ambient air monitoring networks.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. 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. GX Voluntary b. GP Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 22 b. Total annual responses 22 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 7,492 d. Current OMB inventory 4,718 e. Difference 2,774 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2,774 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 23.5 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 109.2 c. Total annualized cost requested 132.7 d. Current OMB inventory 101.1 e. Difference 31.6 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 31.6 2. Adjustment 0 Recordkeeping requirement over 3 years.

15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f.. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. X Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. QX Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. QX Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. QX Other ( describe) Per application/ mod.

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

Q Yes QX No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission)

Name: Robert W. Vanderpool Phone: 919 541 7877 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I 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 Linda Sheldon, Acting Director Human Exposure & Atmospheric Sciences Division National Exposure Research Laboratory ( NERL) Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OPPE) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24409-24411]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-82-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Scoping Period
Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Lucas and
Pavonia Wells Abandonment Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental document that will discuss
the environmental impacts of the Lucas and Pavonia Wells Abandonment
Project (Abandonment Project) involving construction and operation of
facilities by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) in Ashland and
Richland Counties, Ohio. The Commission will use this environmental
document in its decision-making process to determine whether the
project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies regarding the Abandonment Project. As part of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes
into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the
environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental
issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is
described below in the NEPA Process and Environmental Document section
of this notice.
    By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the
scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure
that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 15, 2023. Details on how to submit
comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this
notice.
    Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects,
reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what
issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission
staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the
environmental document.
    If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before
the opening of this docket on March 2, 2023, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP23-82-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a representative from
Columbia may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent
domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach
an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does
not subsequently grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of that
eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle
eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these
matters.
    Columbia provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' which addresses typically asked questions, including
how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet
along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing
on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) under the Natural Gas, Landowner
Topics link.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your
comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected].
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP23-
82-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and
submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These
instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification
and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Columbia proposes to abandon 37 injection/withdrawal wells and
associated pipelines and appurtenances at its existing certificated
Lucas and Pavonia Storage Fields in Ashland and Richland Counties,
Ohio. The Abandonment Project would not change the existing boundary,
total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer boundaries,
or the certificated capacity of the Lucas and Pavonia Storage Fields.
According to Columbia, its project would result in more efficient use
of the remaining storage wells in the Lucas and Pavonia Storage fields
by maintaining the storage fields' integrity and efficiency. Columbia
also states the Abandonment Project would not result in the termination
or reduction in firm service to any of its existing customers.

    The Abandonment Project would consist of the following facilities
and activities:
     abandonment of 37 injection/withdrawal wells at the Lucas
and Pavonia Storage Fields by permanently plugging and abandoning the
wells in place;
     abandonment of approximately 41,423 feet of associated 3-
to 6-inch-diameter pipeline, of which 39,402 feet would be capped and
abandoned in place and 2,021 feet would be abandoned by removal; and
     abandonment by removal of all associated aboveground
appurtenances, including, but not limited to, tie-in valves, pipeline
markers, cathodic protection test stations, rectifiers, casing vents,
and above-ground pipeline blowdown vents.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary.'' For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. For
assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Abandonment of the proposed facilities would disturb about 87 acres
of land. Following the abandonment activities, Columbia would restore
the land and it would revert to former uses. Columbia states that it
has acquired all easements and other land rights needed for the
Abandonment Project.

NEPA Process and the Environmental Document

    Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss
impacts that could occur as a result of the abandonment of the proposed
project under the relevant general resource areas:
     geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     environmental justice;
     air quality and noise; and
     reliability and safety.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on
how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your
comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues
that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially
eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental
document.
    Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine
whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission
staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff
prepares an EA, a Notice of Schedule for the Preparation of an
Environmental Assessment will be issued. The EA may be issued for an
allotted public comment period. The Commission would consider timely
comments on the EA before making its decision regarding the proposed
project. If Commission staff prepares an EIS, a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an EIS/Notice of Schedule will be issued, which will open up an
additional comment period. Staff will then prepare a draft EIS which
will be issued for public comment. Commission staff will consider all
timely comments received during the comment period on the draft EIS and
revise the document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any EA
or draft and final EIS will be available in electronic format in the
public record through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's natural gas
environmental documents web page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you
will receive instant email notification when the environmental document
is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the environmental document.\3\ Agencies that would like
to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for
filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, section 1501.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s),
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ The environmental document for this
project will document findings on the impacts on historic properties
and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and
newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined
in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way
grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes,
or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities,
and anyone who submits comments on the project and includes a mailing
address with their comments. Commission staff will update the
environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that
Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all
individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/
or potentially affected by the proposed project.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP23-82-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.

OR

    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link,

click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number in the ``Docket
Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: April 14, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-08354 Filed 4-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25279-25280]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10088]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0450]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Abbreviated New Animal Drug Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the paperwork associated with
abbreviated new animal drug applications submitted to the Center for
Veterinary Medicine, FDA.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by July 1, 2013.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard
Drive, PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Abbreviated New Animal Drug Applications--Sections 512(b)(2) and (n)(1)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(b)(2) and
(n)(1)) (OMB Control Number 0910-0669))--Extension

    On November 16, 1988, the President signed into law the Generic
Animal Drug and Patent Restoration Act (GADPTRA) (Pub. L. 100-670).
Under section 512(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act), as amended by GADPTRA, any person may file an
abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) seeking approval of a
generic copy of an approved new animal drug. The information required
to be submitted as part of an abbreviated application is described in
section 512(n)(1) of the FD&C Act. Among other things, an abbreviated
application is required to contain information to show that the
proposed generic drug is bioequivalent to, and has the same labeling
as, the approved drug referenced in the abbreviated application. FDA
allows applicants to submit a complete ANADA or to submit information
in support of an ANADA for phased review followed by the submission of
an Administrative ANADA when FDA finds that all the applicable
technical sections for an ANADA are complete. FDA requests that an
applicant accompany ANADAs and requests for phased review of data to
support ANADAs with the Form FDA 356v to ensure efficient and accurate
processing of information to support approval of the generic new animal
drug.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                   Table 1--ANADAs: Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
              FD&C act section 512(b)(2)                   FDA form        Number of     responses per   Total annual    Average burden    Total hours
                                                                          respondents     respondent       responses     per  response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANADA.................................................            356v              18               1              18            159            2,862
Phased Review With Administrative ANADA...............            356v               3               5              15             31.8            477
                                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ...............          3,339
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    ANADA paperwork burden (section 512(b)(2) of the FD&C Act). Over
the past 5 fiscal years, from October 2007 through September 2012, FDA
has received an average of 21 ANADAs per year. FDA estimates that
preparing the paperwork required under 21 U.S.C. 360b(n)(1) to be
contained in an ANADA, whether all of the information is submitted with
the ANADA or the applicant submits information for phased review
followed by an Administrative ANADA that references that information,
will take approximately 159 hours. (FDA is estimating that each ANADA
that uses the phased review process will have approximately five phased
reviews per application. Therefore, assuming that three respondents
will take advantage of the phased review option per year and an average
of five phased reviews are submitted per application, times 31.8 hours
per phased review, equals 477 total hours per year or 159 hours per
application.)
    Although over the last 5 fiscal years all sponsors chose to submit
traditional ANADAs, some sponsors did indicate an interest in using the
phased review option in the future. FDA believes that with time, more
and more sponsors will take advantage of the phased review option, as
it provides greater flexibility, and estimates that there will be three
respondents for the phased review option. FDA also estimates that
sponsors of ANADAs take approximately 25 percent less time to put
together the information to support an ANADA than a new animal drug
application (NADA) because they only need to provide evidence of
bioequivalence and not the data required in an NADA to support a full
demonstration of safety and effectiveness.
    Form FDA 356v. FDA requests that an applicant fill out and send in
with an ANADA and requests for phased review of data to support an
ANADAs, a Form FDA 356v to ensure efficient and accurate processing of
information to support the approval of a generic new animal drug.
Records and reports that are required post approval are described in 21
CFR 514.80 and that paperwork is already covered by that rule in OMB
control number 0910-0284.

    Dated: April 23, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-10088 Filed 4-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69725-69728]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27754]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70874; File No. SR-Phlx-2013-111]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Pricing Schedule Under Section VIII With Respect To
Execution and Routing of Orders in Securities Priced at $1 or More Per
Share

November 14, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 31, 2013, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule
under Section VIII, entitled ``NASDAQ OMX PSX FEES,'' with respect to
execution and routing of orders in securities priced at $1 or more per
share.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the certain
fees and rebates for order execution and routing applicable to the use
of the order execution and routing services of the NASDAQ OMX PSX
System by member organizations for all securities traded at $1 or more
per share.

Amended Fees for Execution of Quotes/Orders in Securities Listed on
Nasdaq

    The Exchange is proposing to amend fees assessed for the execution
of orders in securities listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq'') that execute in NASDAQ OMX PSX (``PSX''). Currently, the
Exchange assesses a charge of $0.0028 per share executed for an order
entered through a PSX Market Participant Identifier (``MPID'') through
which the member organization provides an average daily volume of
10,000 or more shares of liquidity during the month. The Exchange is
proposing to increase the charge assessed for such orders executed at
PSX to $0.0030.
    The Exchange is also proposing to increase the charge assessed for
an order executed in PSX in Nasdaq securities that is designated as
eligible for routing. Currently, the Exchange assesses a charge of
$0.0028 per share executed for an order that is designated as eligible
for routing. The Exchange is proposing to increase the charge assessed
for such orders executed at PSX to $0.0030.

Amended Fees for Execution of Quotes/Orders in Securities Listed on
NYSE

    The Exchange is proposing to amend fees assessed and credits
provided for the execution of orders in securities listed on the New
York Stock Exchange,

Inc. (``NYSE'') that execute in PSX. Currently, the Exchange assesses a
charge of $0.0028 per share executed for an order entered through a PSX
MPID through which the member organization provides an average daily
volume of 10,000 or more shares of liquidity during the month. The
Exchange is proposing to increase the charge assessed for such orders
executed at PSX to $0.0030.
    The Exchange is also proposing to increase the charge assessed for
an order executed in PSX in NYSE-listed securities that is designated
as eligible for routing. Currently, the Exchange assesses a charge of
$0.0028 per share executed for an order that is designated as eligible
for routing. The Exchange is proposing to increase the charge assessed
for such orders executed in PSX to $0.0030.
    The Exchange is proposing to amend the credit provided to a member
organization providing displayed liquidity in NYSE-listed securities
through the PSX System. Currently, the Exchange provides a credit of
$0.0028 per share executed for a displayed quote/order entered by a
member organization that provides an average daily volume of 2 million
or more shares of liquidity during the month. To be eligible, either
(1) the quote/order is entered through a PSX MPID through which the
member organization displays, on average over the course of the month,
100 shares or more at the national best bid and/or national best offer
at least 25% of the time during regular market hours in the security
that is the subject of the quote/order, or (2) the member organization
displays, on average over the course of the month, 100 shares or more
at the national best bid and/or national best offer at least 25% of the
time during regular market hours in 500 or more securities. The
Exchange is proposing to increase the credit to $0.0029 per share
executed.
    The Exchange is also proposing a new credit provided to a member
organization providing displayed liquidity in NYSE-listed securities
through the PSX System. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to
offer a credit of $0.0030 per share executed for a displayed quote/
order entered by a member organization that provides an average daily
volume of 6 million or more shares of liquidity during the month. Like
the current credit, in order to be eligible, either (1) the quote/order
is entered through a PSX MPID through which the member organization
displays, on average over the course of the month, 100 shares or more
at the national best bid and/or national best offer at least 25% of the
time during regular market hours in the security that is the subject of
the quote/order, or (2) the member organization displays, on average
over the course of the month, 100 shares or more at the national best
bid and/or national best offer at least 25% of the time during regular
market hours in 500 or more securities.

Amended Fees for Execution of Quotes/Orders in Securities Listed on
Exchanges Other Than Nasdaq or NYSE

    The Exchange is proposing to amend fees assessed and credits
provided for the execution of orders in securities listed on exchanges
other than Nasdaq or NYSE that execute at PSX. Currently, the Exchange
assesses a charge of $0.0028 per share executed for an order entered
through a PSX MPID through which the member organization provides an
average daily volume of 10,000 or more shares of liquidity during the
month. The Exchange is proposing to increase the charge assessed for
such orders executed at PSX to $0.0030.
    The Exchange is also proposing to increase the charge assessed for
an order executed in PSX in securities listed on exchanges other than
Nasdaq or NYSE that is designated as eligible for routing. Currently,
the Exchange assesses a charge of $0.0028 per share executed for an
order that is designated as eligible for routing. The Exchange is
proposing to increase the charge assessed for such orders executed at
PSX to $0.0030.
    The Exchange is proposing to amend the credit provided to a member
organization providing displayed liquidity through the PSX System.
Currently, the Exchange provides a credit of $0.0028 per share executed
for a displayed quote/order in securities listed on exchanges other
than Nasdaq or NYSE entered by a member organization that provides an
average daily volume of 2 million or more shares of liquidity during
the month. To be eligible, either (1) the quote/order is entered
through a PSX MPID through which the member organization displays, on
average over the course of the month, 100 shares or more at the
national best bid and/or national best offer at least 25% of the time
during regular market hours in the security that is the subject of the
quote/order, or (2) the member organization displays, on average over
the course of the month, 100 shares or more at the national best bid
and/or national best offer at least 25% of the time during regular
market hours in 500 or more securities. The Exchange is proposing to
increase the credit to $0.0029 per share executed.
    The Exchange is also proposing a new credit provided to a member
organization providing displayed liquidity through the PSX System in
securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE. Specifically,
the Exchange is proposing to offer a credit of $0.0030 per share
executed for a displayed quote/order entered by a member organization
that provides an average daily volume of 6 million or more shares of
liquidity during the month. Like the current credit, in order to be
eligible, either (1) the quote/order is entered through a PSX MPID
through which the member organization displays, on average over the
course of the month, 100 shares or more at the national best bid and/or
national best offer at least 25% of the time during regular market
hours in the security that is the subject of the quote/order, or (2)
the member organization displays, on average over the course of the
month, 100 shares or more at the national best bid and/or national best
offer at least 25% of the time during regular market hours in 500 or
more securities.

Amended Fees for Routing of Orders in All Securities

    The Exchange is proposing to amend fees assessed and credits
provided for the routing of orders in all securities. Currently, for
PSTG or PSCN orders that execute in a venue other than PSX the Exchange
assesses a charge of $0.0025 per share executed at the NYSE, a credit
of $0.0014 per share executed at BX and a charge of $0.28 [sic] per
share executed in other venues. The Exchange proposes to decrease the
credit provided for executions at BX to $0.0011, and to increase the
charges for executions elsewhere, including the NYSE, to $0.0030 per
share executed.
    The Exchange is also proposing to amend the fees assessed member
organizations for entering a PMOP order that executes in a venue other
than PSX. Currently, the Exchange assesses a charge of $0.0027 per
share executed at the NYSE and a charge of $0.0031 per share executed
at venues other than the NYSE. The Exchange proposes increasing these
fees to $0.0030 per share executed at the NYSE and $0.0035 per share
executed at venues other than the NYSE.
    The Exchange is proposing to amend the fees assessed and credits
provided for member organizations entering a PTFY order that executes
in a venue other than PSX. Currently, the Exchange assesses a charge of
$0.0024 per share executed at the NYSE, a charge of $0.0005 per share
executed at venues other than the NYSE, Nasdaq or BX, a charge of
$0.0028 per share executed at Nasdaq, and provides a credit of $0.0014
per share executed at BX. The

Exchange is proposing to decrease the credit provided to $0.0011 per
share executed at BX, and increase the charges for shares executed at
NYSE and Nasdaq to $0.0030 per share executed.
    The Exchange is proposing to amend the fees assessed and credits
provided for member organizations entering a PCRT order that executes
in a venue other than PSX. Currently, the Exchange assesses a charge of
$0.0028 per share executed at Nasdaq and provides a credit of $0.0014
per share executed at BX. The Exchange is proposing to increase the
charge assessed for executions on Nasdaq to $0.0030 per share executed,
and to decrease the credit provided for executions on BX to $0.0011 per
share executed.
    Last, the Exchange is proposing to amend the credit provided to a
member organization for entering an XCST order that executes at BX.
Currently, the Exchange provides a credit of $0.0014 per share executed
at BX. The Exchange is proposing to decrease the credit provided to
$0.0011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \3\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act \4\
in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities, and it does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers. The proposed changes are reasonable
because they reflect a modest decrease in the credits provided in the
execution of certain orders and a modest increase in the fees assessed
for others, which will allow the Exchange to reduce costs and increase
revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The change with respect to fees for execution of quotes/orders in
securities that execute on PSX is reasonable because it will make the
applicable fees for orders that execute in PSX uniform, without regard
to the nature of entry, eligibility for routing, or the listing venue
of the security. Moreover, the change will result in a modest increase
of only $0.0002 per share executed for PSX MPID-entered orders eligible
for the existing tier, and for orders designated as eligible for
routing. The change is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees
and not unfairly discriminatory because it will eliminate an existing
disparity between the fees charged for orders that execute in PSX,
thereby making the applicable fees consistent. In addition, the change
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it affects all
member organizations that execute orders in PSX.
    The change with respect to the credits provided for execution of
quotes/orders in NYSE-listed securities and securities listed on
exchanges other than Nasdaq is reasonable because it further
incentivizes member organizations to provide displayed quotes and
orders on PSX. Specifically, the change achieves this goal by
increasing the credit provided under the current tier, and creating a
new tier that provides a larger credit to member organizations that
provide a larger average daily volume of shares of liquidity during the
month. The change is consistent with an equitable allocation of fees
and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies the same criteria
and provides the same rebate to member organizations trading in non-
Nasdaq securities that provide displayed liquidity to PSX, under each
of the tiers.
    The changes with respect to the charges assessed and credits
provided for routing of orders in all securities are reasonable because
they represent a modest increases in charges assessed a member
organization for PSTG, PSCN, PMOP, PTFY and PCRT orders that execute in
a venue other than PSX, and a modest decrease in the credits provided
to member organizations for PSTG, PSCN, PTFY, PCRT and XCST orders that
execute at BX. The Exchange notes that the increase in fees and
decrease in credits are designed to incentivize member organizations to
provide orders and quotes that execute on PSX. In addition, the change
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it affects only
those members that opt to use the Exchange's optional routing services.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.\5\ The Exchange
notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities
available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment,
the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive
with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have
been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable
to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited. In this instance, the decreased credits and
increased fees are intended to reduce the Exchange's costs, while still
continuing to provide an incentive for members to execute shares on PSX
and make use of its optional routing functionality. Because there are
numerous competitive alternatives to PSX, it is likely the Exchange
will lose market share as a result of the changes if they are
unattractive to market participants. Accordingly, the Exchange does not
believe the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or
competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing
in the financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\7\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2013-111 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-111. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2013-111 and should be
submitted on or before December 11, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27754 Filed 11-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 123)]
[Notices]
[Page 36779-36780]
[DOCID:fr28jn10-152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-
2005-21254; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2007-0017; FMCSA-
2007-0071; FMCSA-2008-0021]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement

in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 29 individuals.
FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision
requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The
Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a
level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level
of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) drivers.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The comment
period ended on May 17, 2010 (75 FR 19674).

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment is
considered and discussed below. An anonymous individual stated that he
feels the Agency is negligent and lets drivers who can't see get by
with unsafe regulations. The individual feels that standards need to be
instituted to guide the medical doctors.
    In regard to this comment, to evaluate the effect of these
exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered not only the medical reports
about the applicants' vision, but also their driving records and
experience with the vision deficiency. To qualify for an exemption from
the vision standard, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable
evidence that he or she has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the
vision deficiency for 3 years. Recent driving performance is especially
important in evaluating future safety, according to several research
studies designed to correlate past and future driving performance.
Results of these studies support the principle that the best predictor
of future performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and
traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number
FMCSA-1998-3637. FMCSA also relies on the medical physician examining
the driver to determine if the individual has sufficient vision to
perform the tasks necessary to operate a commercial vehicle safely.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 29 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for Gerald L. Anderson, Leo G. Becker, Timothy W.
Bickford, Stanley W. Davis, Ray L. Emert, Sean O. Feeny, Steven R.
Felks, Marvin T. Fowler, Michael J. Frein, Jimmy G. Hall, Hazel L.
Hopkins, Jr., Dennis R. Irvin, Mark L. LeBlanc, David A. Miller, Rick
P. Moreno, Paul D. Schnautz, Steve J. Sherar, Robert F. Skinner, Jr.,
William T. Smiley, Richard M. Smith, Robert A. Stoeckle, David N.
Stubbs, Edward J. Sullivan, Aaron S. Taylor, Martin L. Taylor, Gary R.
Thomas, William B. Thomas, Michael J. Tisher and Kevin R. White.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: June 21, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-15676 Filed 6-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


                      PROPOSED REPEAL OF THE RULES OF THE
                        DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
                       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

                               CHAPTER 391-3-22
                              CLEAN FUELED FLEETS

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

391-3-22-.01 Repealed
Authority:  O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1, et seq.

391-3-22-.02 Repealed
Authority:  O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1, et seq.

391-3-22-.03 Repealed
Authority:  O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1, et seq.

391-3-22-.04 Repealed
Authority:  O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1, et seq.

391-3-22-.05 Repealed
Authority:  O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1, et seq.

391-3-22-.06 Repealed
Authority:  O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1, et seq., .

391-3-22-.07 Repealed
Authority:  O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1, et seq.

391-3-22-.08 Repealed
Authority:  O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1, et seq.

391-3-22-.09 Repealed
Authority:  O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1, et seq.

391-3-22-.10 Repealed
Authority:  O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1, et seq.

391-3-22-.11 Repealed
Authority:  O.C.G.A. Section 12-9-1, et seq


Meeting Summary

EPA/MAATF Organic Arsenical Herbicides RED Meeting

February 13, 2007, 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM

Room S-12100, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Participants

MAATF: Charlie Grizzle (Grizzle Co.), Steven Lamm (CEOH), Roy Olson
(Drexel Chemical Co.), Sam Cohen (UNMC), Roger Jackson (KMG), Michal
Eldan (Luxembourg-Pamol), Lorenz Rhomberg (Gradient)

EPA: Jim Jones (Director, OPP), Rick Keigwin (BEAD), Steve Bradburry
(EFED), Tina Levine (HED), Debbie Edwards (SRRD), Jonathan Chen (AD),
Anna Lowit (HED), Vicki Dellarco (HED), Dirk Helder (SRRD), Margaret
Rice (SRRD), Lance Wormell (SRRD)

Summary

On February 13, 2007, the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Office
Director and the Division Directors/team members from the Special Review
and Reregistration Division, Health Effects Division, Environmental Fate
and Effects Division, and Biologic and Economic Analysis Division met
with representatives from the MAA (Monomethyl Arsonic Acid) Research
Task Force (MAATF) to discuss the organic arsenical herbicides MSMA,
DSMA, CAMA, and cacodylic acid.  The MAATF presented a summary of recent
meetings held with EFED and BEAD and a review of inorganic arsenic
carcinogenicity which the MAATF believes demonstrates that the “risk
cup” for inorganic arsenic is not full.  The information presented was
recently submitted to EPA as part of the MAATF’s formal comments on
the RED as part of the comment period that closed on January 19, 2007.
EPA will review all comments received and issue a formal response in the
future.  Cacodylic acid is used as a defoliant in cotton and lawn
renovation.  MSMA and DSMA are used for weed control in cotton and
ornamental/residential turf.  CAMA is used for weed control in
residential turf.