[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9706-9714]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04652]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 112

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0921]
RIN 0910-AH93

Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of
Produce for Human Consumption; Extension of Compliance Dates for
Subpart E

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
extending, for covered produce other than sprouts, the dates for
compliance with the agricultural water provisions in the ``Standards
for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human
Consumption'' rule. We are extending the compliance dates to address
questions about the practical implementation of compliance with certain
provisions and to consider how we might further reduce the regulatory
burden or increase flexibility while continuing to protect public
health.

DATES: As of March 18, 2019 the compliance dates for the agricultural
water provisions (subpart E) in the Standards for the ``Growing,
Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption''
rule (November 27, 2015, 80 FR 74354), for covered produce other than
sprouts, are delayed to January 26, 2024, for very small businesses,
January 26, 2023, for small businesses, and January 26, 2022, for all
other businesses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samir Assar, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-317), Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Analysis and Response to Public Comments
IV. Economic Analysis of Impacts
V. Analysis of Environmental Impact
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VII. Federalism
VIII. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
IX. References

I. Executive Summary

    The final rule extends, for covered produce other than sprouts, the
dates for compliance with the agricultural water provisions in the
``Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of
Produce for Human Consumption'' rule. The agricultural water provisions
are contained in subpart E of that rule. We are also simplifying the
compliance date structure under subpart E as applied to non-sprout
covered produce, while retaining date-staggering based on size. The new
compliance dates for the agricultural water requirements in subpart E
for non-sprout covered produce are January 26, 2024, for very small
businesses; January 26, 2023, for small businesses; and January 26,
2022, for all other businesses.
    The final rule does not alter the requirements in subpart E and
therefore the estimated costs and benefits accrued in any given year of
compliance with the produce safety regulation, relative to the first
year of compliance, do not change. However, because the compliance
dates for the agricultural water provisions are extended, the
discounted value of both total costs and total benefits decrease.
    The impact of this final rule is summarized in the following table.

                 Table 1--Summary of Changes to Benefits and Costs as a Result of the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Units
                                                      Primary    -----------------------------------------------
                    Category                         estimate                      Discount rate
                                                                   Year dollars         (%)       Period covered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forgone Benefits:

    Annualized..................................             $96            2017               7       2016-2025
    Monetized $millions/year....................             104            2017               3       2016-2025
Forgone Costs:
    Annualized..................................              10            2017               7       2016-2025
    Monetized $millions/year....................              12            2017               3       2016-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    This extension of compliance dates concerns one of the seven
foundational rules that we have established in Title 21 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (21 CFR), Part 112 as part of our implementation of
the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA; Pub. L. 111-353):
``Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of
Produce for Human Consumption'' (the produce safety regulation,
published in the Federal Register of November 27, 2015, 80 FR 74354)
(https://www.fda.gov/fsma). We proposed this extension in a proposed
rule published on September 13, 2017 (82 FR 42963). We have reviewed
the comments submitted in response to the proposed rule, and we respond
to those comments in section II. In this final rule we are extending
the compliance dates as proposed.
    In the preamble of the final rule establishing the produce safety
regulation, we stated that the produce safety regulation would be
effective on January 26, 2016, and provided for compliance dates of 1
to 6 years from the effective date depending on farm size, commodity,
and provision(s) (see table entitled ``compliance dates'' in the
preamble of the final rule establishing the produce safety regulation,
80 FR 74354 at 74357, as corrected in a technical amendment at 81 FR
26466, May 3, 2016). (Some of the compliance dates identified in the
technical amendment fall on weekends (i.e., January 26, 2019, is a
Saturday and January 26, 2020, is a Sunday) and should therefore be
read as referring to the next business day (i.e., January 28, 2019, and
January 27, 2020, respectively). We use the latter dates throughout
this document.)
    For the majority of agricultural water provisions at subpart E (and
for most of the other provisions in the rule), with respect to covered
produce other than sprouts, we provided compliance periods of 4 years
from the effective date of the rule for very small businesses, 3 years
for small businesses, and 2 years for all other businesses.\1\ We
provided an additional 2 years beyond those compliance periods for
certain water quality requirements in Sec.  112.44 and related
provisions in Sec. Sec.  112.45 and 112.46. See table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the produce safety regulation, a farm is a very small
business if, on a rolling basis, the average annual monetary value
of produce it sold during the previous 3-year period is no more than
$250,000. A farm is a small business if, on a rolling basis, the
average annual monetary value of produce it sold during the previous
3-year period is no more than $500,000; and the farm is not a very
small business. See 21 CFR 112.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a final rule, ``The Food and Drug Administration Food Safety
Modernization Act; Extension and Clarification of Compliance Dates for
Certain Provisions of Four Implementing Rules'' (81 FR 57784, August
24, 2016) we also extended the compliance date for certain ``customer
provisions'' in four of the seven foundational rules that we have
established as part of our implementation of FSMA, including the
produce safety regulation (Sec.  112.2(b)(3)). In that final rule, we
also clarified how we interpret the compliance dates for certain
agricultural water testing provisions established in the produce safety
regulation.

  Table 2--As Stated in Produce Safety Regulation, Compliance Dates for
  Requirements in Subpart E (Agricultural Water) for Covered Activities
     Involving Covered Produce (Except Sprouts Subject to Subpart M)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Extended compliance date of
   Compliance dates of 2-4 years        additional 2 years beyond the
applicable to the farm based on its    compliance date based on size of
                size                                 farm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   112.41.                       Sec.   112.44.
Sec.   112.42.                       Sec.   112.45(a) with respect to
                                      Sec.   112.44(a) criterion.
Sec.   112.43.
Sec.   112.45(b).
Sec.   112.45(a) with respect to     Sec.   112.46(b)(1) with respect to
 safe and adequate standard.          untreated ground water.
Sec.   112.46(a).                    Sec.   112.46(b)(2) and (b)(3).
Sec.   112.46(b)(1) with respect to  Sec.   112.46(c).
 untreated surface water.
Sec.   112.47.
Sec.   112.48.
Sec.   112.49.
Sec.   112.50.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA has received feedback from numerous stakeholders raising issues
regarding the practicality of some of the agricultural water
requirements in the produce safety regulation as applied to covered
produce other than sprouts. Many of these concerns relate to the
testing requirements for pre-harvest agricultural water, which are
different for sprouts than they are for other types of covered produce.
We are extending these compliance dates in light of the feedback we
have received. Additional time allows us to consider how to approach
these issues.

    As part of this extension, we are simplifying the subpart E
compliance period structure such that all the compliance dates for
subpart E provisions as applied to non-sprout covered produce will
occur at the same time, retaining date-staggering based on farm size.
Accordingly, covered farms will have 2 years beyond the previously
published compliance dates for the water quality requirements in Sec.
112.44 and related provisions in Sec. Sec.  112.45 and 112.46, to
comply with all of subpart E. Put another way, we are extending the
compliance dates for provisions in the first column of table 2 by 4
years and extending the compliance dates for provisions in the second
column of table 2 by 2 years, so that the compliance dates for non-
sprout covered produce for all provisions of subpart E are those listed
in table 3.

Table 3--Compliance Dates for Requirements in Subpart E for Covered Activities Involving Covered Produce (Except
                                          Sprouts Subject to Subpart M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Time periods starting from the effective date of the November 27, 2015,
                                                      produce safety final rule (January 26, 2016)
         Size of covered farm          -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Compliance period                     Compliance date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Small Business...................  8 years............................  January 26, 2024.
Small Business........................  7 years............................  January 26, 2023.
All Other Businesses..................  6 years............................  January 26, 2022.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule is limited in scope to extending the compliance dates for
covered produce other than sprouts. The rule does not address the
underlying requirements in subpart E, but only the compliance dates for
those requirements (for covered produce other than sprouts).
    We conducted a qualitative assessment of risk of hazards associated
with produce production during the produce safety rulemaking, which
indicates that agricultural water is a potential route of contamination
of produce during growing, harvesting, and on-farm postharvest
activities and that use of poor agricultural practices could lead to
contamination and illness even where the potential for contamination is
relatively low. We remain firmly committed to science-based minimum
standards directed to agricultural water to minimize the risk of
serious adverse health consequences or death from the use of, or
exposure to, covered produce, including those reasonably necessary to
prevent the introduction of known or reasonably foreseeable hazards
into covered produce, and to provide reasonable assurances that the
produce is not adulterated under section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 342). To that end, we have been
pursuing and will continue to pursue a rigorous stakeholder engagement
plan in the coming months as we consider the practical implementation
of the agricultural water requirements and how to best achieve these
important public health objectives. Along with farmers and others in
the produce industry, in February 2018 we participated in a summit at
which participants proposed and discussed potential approaches to
addressing concerns with the existing agricultural water requirements.
We are also continuing visits to farms throughout the country to
further refine our understanding of the myriad variations in
agricultural water sources and uses. We will continue to consult with
experts in produce safety, water systems, and water microbiology, from
both the public and private sectors, to take advantage of the very
latest scientific developments and conclusions, particularly around
water quality criteria, sampling, and testing.
    This rule does not change the compliance dates for sprouts. In the
final produce safety regulation, we provided staggered compliance
periods based on farm size for covered activities involving sprouts.
The compliance date for activities involving sprouts for very small
businesses is January 28, 2019. The compliance date for activities
involving sprouts for small businesses is January 26, 2018. The
compliance date for activities involving sprouts for all other
businesses is January 26, 2017. The final produce safety regulation
established sprout-specific requirements on multiple topics, including
agricultural water. The agricultural water requirements for sprouts are
different from the agricultural water requirements for other produce
commodities (compare Sec. Sec.  112.44(a)(1) and 112.44(b)). We have
not received any significant feedback from sprout farms that subpart E
has posed particular challenges. Accordingly, as proposed, we are not
taking action with regard to compliance dates for activities involving
sprouts.
    Table 4 summarizes the compliance dates for the produce safety
regulation based on this final rule. Time periods start from the
effective date of the produce safety rule (January 26, 2016) except as
otherwise specified.
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18MR19.000

BILLING CODE 4164-01-C

III. Analysis and Response to Public Comments

    In response to the proposed rule, we received comments from covered
farms, consumer protection groups, groups representing these
stakeholders, and state governments. Many of the comments were
supportive of the proposed extension and simplification of compliance
dates. In this final rule, we respond to comments related to whether
FDA should extend the compliance dates and simplify the compliance date
structure for the agricultural water requirements for covered produce
other than sprouts. We did not consider and do not address comments
that raised issues beyond the narrow scope of the proposed rule,
including comments related to withdrawal or modifications to subpart E
or comments related to broader policy issues. FDA will take these
additional comments into consideration as we consider approaches to
address agricultural water requirements. In this final rule we also do
not address specific questions on the produce safety regulation, but
the Technical Assistance Network remains an available resource for such
questions (https://www.fda.gov/food/guidanceregulation/fsma/ucm459719.htm). We have summarized the relevant comments received and
provided our responses below.
    (Comment 1) Many comments supported the proposed extension of
compliance dates for the agricultural water provisions for covered
produce other than sprouts. One comment stated that the extension would
allow covered farms an opportunity to continue a dialogue with FDA
around the best

approaches to implementing the agricultural water provisions. An
association said it ``strongly supported'' the proposed extension, that
the agricultural water provisions are very complex, and explained it
had been working to educate its members about the requirements but
found that developing practical advice was a challenge given the
complexity. Another organization expressed its support for the proposed
extension and stated that the agricultural water provisions are
complicated and difficult to understand. Another individual wrote in
support of the extension, contending that covered farms and other
stakeholders have been confused by the requirements, and opined that an
extension would be particularly helpful to smaller covered farms that
could use the additional time to understand and implement these
provisions.
    (Response 1) These comments are consistent with the feedback we
have been receiving on the complexity of the agricultural water
provisions from stakeholders since the produce safety final rule
published in 2015. We have repeatedly heard the message relayed in
these comments--that the requirements of subpart E, particularly the
sampling and testing provisions, are complicated to understand, and
questions remain about how to implement them in a practical manner.
Accordingly, we have decided to finalize the extension as proposed.
    (Comment 2) Some comments opposed FDA's proposal to extend the
compliance dates because they did not believe we had sufficiently
justified the proposed delay, or its length. These comments noted that
the compliance dates for certain agricultural water testing
requirements were already later than the compliance dates for the rest
of the produce safety regulation. These comments also stated that FDA
had already sufficiently addressed stakeholder concerns through the
rulemaking process, noting that we revised the agricultural water
requirements as a result of comments on the proposed and supplemental
rules. Some comments also encouraged the Agency to withdraw the
proposed rule and focus on implementing the produce safety regulation
on time; these comments also noted the public health benefits of the
produce safety regulation.
    (Response 2) While we share the goal of public health expressed in
these comments, we believe that a delay is necessary and justified for
reasons different than those set out in the final rule for the changes
to the agricultural water requirements. The feedback we have received
since the final rule was published about the complexity and the
attendant challenges with the produce safety regulation's agricultural
water requirements has been frequent and consistent and has come from
growers of many commodities in many regions. This feedback is new and
is in addition to the comments on the proposed rule. Since the final
rule was published, many covered farms, both individually and in groups
via associations, have strenuously expressed concerns, particularly
around the complexity of the sampling and testing provisions. On
numerous farm visits and industry gatherings across the country,
stakeholders have frequently communicated to us that they view the
agricultural water regulatory scheme as too complex and too burdensome,
and have objected that it does not sufficiently allow for a variety of
water uses and availabilities. In the face of these widespread and
steady concerns, including new concerns that were not expressed in
response to the proposed rule, we proposed this compliance date
extension, for the purpose of further engaging stakeholders and
determining what can be done to consider and address the concerns we
have heard. Many comments to this docket repeat and reinforce what we
have been hearing. We therefore conclude it is in the public's interest
for us to institute this delay so that we may further collaborate with
an array of stakeholders and pursue solutions that will allow us to
achieve the shared goal of improved produce safety in a way that is
more workable for covered farms.
    The length of this delay in compliance dates was chosen to allow us
sufficient time to explore these challenges with stakeholders and
experts, and pursue solutions that improve the workability of these
provisions. Covered farms also need a significant amount of time to
prepare for compliance after the solutions are determined. A shorter
time period would not have been sufficient for both robust stakeholder
engagement and for covered farms to transition to implementation.
    (Comment 3) Some comments opposed FDA's proposal to extend the
agricultural water compliance dates, in general because they concluded
the extension would harm consumers more than it would help covered
farms. Some of these comments noted that FDA's cost-benefit analysis
indicates that this delay would impose a burden on consumers that
outweighs any gains that may accrue to producers. Some comments
contended that the extension has the potential to increase the risk of
illness and death by potentially more than 730,000 additional cases of
foodborne illness. Some comments noted that the proposed compliance
date extension would mean covered farms would not be required to comply
with these provisions until 11-13 years after FSMA was enacted, thereby
delaying benefits to the public.
    (Response 3) FDA remains committed to ensuring that the produce
safety rule addresses the risks associated with agricultural water. We
note that produce remains subject to the adulteration provisions of the
FD&C Act during this extension of the compliance dates, and the agency
encourages farms to focus their attention on good agricultural
practices to maintain and protect the quality of their water sources.
(See, e.g., FDA's ``Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables,'' at https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ucm064574.htm). We have, however, determined that it will serve the
public health best to take time now to engage stakeholders and discern
how best to achieve public health protections in the covered produce
agricultural water arena. FDA believes that ignoring the widespread
concerns raised about complexity and serious questions about how the
requirements can be implemented in practical ways on farms is also
likely to reduce the estimated public health benefits of the
agricultural water provision of the rule. Farms that cannot understand
the requirements and determine how to implement the requirements are
not likely to be realizing full food safety measures. We thus believe
it is critical to address the issues we have heard about the complexity
of the final rule and the diversity of use and source of agricultural
water, and the variety of factors that impact agricultural water. The
agency also believes that further collaboration with stakeholders to
understand the source of the complexity and develop practical solutions
is necessary to best allow us to achieve the shared goal of improved
produce safety in a way that is more workable for covered farms.
    The economic analysis we conducted for the produce safety final
rule, in keeping with our standard practice, evaluated the costs and
benefits of the rule in its first 10 years, or 2016-2025. We analyzed
the costs and benefits of this extension over the same time horizon
(2016-2025). We estimated that this extension would translate to a
savings of $12 (10) million for covered farms (annualized at 3 (7)
percent over

those 10 years), because we estimated covered farms would delay making
additional investments to initially comply with the agricultural water
provisions until the arrival of the extended compliance dates. Because
our economic analysis spans ten years starting with the produce safety
rule effective date, the delay in those initial investments shows as a
savings over those 10 years, but over the longer term may be viewed as
costs deferred rather than saved. Using the same time horizon (2016-
2025), we also estimated that this extension would reduce expected
benefits from the rule as a whole during those 10 years from $800
($740) million to $696 ($644) million, annualized at 3 percent (7
percent) over those 10 years.
    We do not know how the commenter arrived at the estimate that this
extension could contribute to more than 730,000 additional cases of
foodborne illness. We estimate that approximately 31,300 illnesses
would not be prevented during the specified 10-year time horizon as a
result of this extension.\2\ Because we have not yet decided how to
address the concerns that have been raised about the practicality of
the requirements, we cannot estimate the economic impact or the effect
on foodborne illness rates of any solutions that we might implement in
the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We arrive at this estimate by taking the decrease in the
annualized benefits between the original produce safety rule and the
rule with this extension (about $104 million and $96 million at 3
percent and 7 percent, respectively, over 10 years) and dividing it
by the average cost per foodborne illness associated with covered
produce other than sprouts. We estimate that approximately 30,103
and 32,554 illnesses annualized at 3 percent and 7 percent,
respectively, that we estimate would not be prevented during the
specified 10-year time horizon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the delay of the compliance dates, we intend to lay the
groundwork for a successful implementation, which will benefit all
stakeholders. We will use this time to engage with all stakeholders and
consult with experts to determine how to implement, explain, and/or
revise the agricultural water provisions in ways that reduce complexity
and improve their workability for covered farms while still attaining
for the public the benefits of science-based agricultural water
standards for covered produce. We will also use the time to continue
our outreach and educational efforts, so that the myriad types of
covered farms will have the opportunity to prepare for successful
implementation.
    (Comment 4) Some comments opposed FDA's proposal to extend
compliance dates because they felt that the proposed rule was too broad
in that it extends the compliance date for other agricultural water
provisions in subpart E that are not dependent on an analysis of
multiyear water profile (e.g., requirement for growers to inspect and
repair water distribution infrastructure, monitor for the buildup of
organic material in wash tanks and coolers, maintain and monitor the
temperature of water to minimize microbiological risk, and keeping
records of the scientific support for food safety interventions).
Comments argued that some subpart E requirements are not complex, and
it would not be difficult for covered farms to comply with such
requirements by the original compliance dates. Comments also noted some
third-party audits require compliance with standards that are similar
to parts of subpart E, implying that some covered farms are already
complying with similar provisions for that purpose.
    (Response 4) FDA considered proposing to extend just the provisions
in subpart E that, under the produce safety final rule, had a
compliance date 2 years later than the rest of subpart E (see table 2),
but we determined that there were other provisions in subpart E that
were equally complex and challenging for stakeholders, particularly
other sampling and testing provisions (see, e.g., Sec.  112.46(b)(1)
(testing requirement originally subject to the ``earlier'' compliance
date in the context of untreated surface water)). Accordingly,
retaining the original bifurcated structure was not an option. We have
heard repeatedly from stakeholders that the compliance date structure
under subpart E is confusing, so extending compliance dates for both a
subset of the originally-not-extended provisions of subpart E, together
with the originally-extended provisions of subpart E, would mean adding
another layer of confusion to the subpart E compliance date situation,
and that did not seem wise or workable.
    Some third-party audits include agricultural water requirements
with which farms must comply to obtain a passing audit or
certification, and some of those requirements may be similar to
provisions in subpart E. Although some segments of the industry do
undergo third-party audits, that fact did not dissuade us from the
conclusion that there is a need to extend the compliance date for all
of subpart E (for covered produce other than sprouts), which is based
on significant feedback received from stakeholders since publication of
subpart E in the produce safety final rule as well as comments on the
extension proposed rule.
    (Comment 5) Some comments argued that FDA failed to explain the
nature of the confusion over the rule's compliance date structure that
caused us to propose a simplification to that structure.
    (Response 5) As evidenced by other comments, there was confusion
over the compliance dates in subpart E and some stakeholders found it
challenging to discern exactly which regulatory requirements were
subject to the longer compliance period. One comment noted that simply
determining the relevant compliance date is a challenge and said
simplifying the compliance date structure would help. Other comments
noted being confused by the existing compliance date structure. We
conclude there is sufficient justification for us to simplify the
subpart E compliance date structure.
    (Comment 6) Even with the compliance date extension and
simplification we proposed in September 2017 and are finalizing here,
some comments expressed confusion about the meaning of the compliance
date with respect to initiating sampling versus completing the
microbial water quality profile (MWQP). One comment specifically
requested that the new compliance dates mean the dates on which farms
must start to conduct the initial survey to develop the MWQP.
    (Response 6) Farms are not required to have completed a MWQP by
their compliance date. A farm's compliance date means the date on which
the farm must begin sampling a water source for its initial survey,
which will eventually result in a MWQP.
    We note that this issue was addressed in the 2016 final rule that
extended and clarified compliance dates for certain FSMA provisions (81
FR 57784 at 57793-94). However, we recognize that there is still
confusion about when the MWQP must be completed under the simplified
compliance date structure we are finalizing here. We are therefore
clarifying that farms are not required to have already developed a
completed MWQP as of their new compliance date. Rather, farms must
begin sampling and testing their untreated water sources in accordance
with Sec.  112.46(b)(1), as applicable, by their compliance date. If
the compliance date is not an appropriate time to engage in the
relevant sampling and testing activities--for example, because of the
requirement in Sec.  112.46(b)(1)(ii) that samples be representative of
your use of the water--then compliance must begin by the first relevant
time period that occurs after the compliance date.
    To elaborate on what this would mean in practical terms, for a farm
that is not small or very small, compliance must begin by the first
relevant time period that occurs on or after January 26, 2022.

For example, if a farm that is not small or very small only uses an
untreated water source for agricultural water in May, a compliance date
of January 26, 2022, would indicate that sample collection under Sec.
112.46(b)(1) must take place in May 2022, as that is the time in which
water samples collected would be representative of their use of the
water. Farms that wish to develop or begin developing their MWQP prior
to their compliance date are welcome to do so; but in the above
example, FDA would not expect sample collection to have begun prior to
May 2022.
    To provide a few examples related to the number and timing of
samples, all of the following possible approaches are acceptable for
farms that are not small or very small:
     Beginning in 2022, conducting an initial survey of an
untreated surface water source by taking 10 samples per year over 2
years (10 in 2022 and 10 in 2023) for a total of 20 samples in
accordance with Sec.  112.46(b)(1)(i)(A); calculating the MWQP for the
first time upon completing the 20-sample data set in 2023; and applying
any necessary corrective actions under Sec.  112.45(b) as soon as
practicable and no later than the following year (e.g., during the 2024
growing season).
     Beginning in 2022, conducting an initial survey of an
untreated surface water source by taking 5 samples per year over 4
years (5 in 2022, 5 in 2023, 5 in 2024, and 5 in 2025) for a total of
20 samples, in accordance with Sec.  112.46(b)(1)(i)(A); calculating
the MWQP for the first time upon completing the 20-sample data set in
2025; and applying any necessary corrective actions under Sec.
112.45(b) as soon as practicable and no later than the following year
(e.g., during the 2026 growing season).
     Beginning in 2022, conducting an initial survey of an
untreated ground water source by taking 4 samples during the 2022
growing season in accordance with Sec.  112.46(b)(1)(i)(B); calculating
the MWQP for the first time upon completing the 4-sample data set at
the end of the 2022 growing season; and applying any necessary
corrective actions under Sec.  112.45(b) as soon as practicable and no
later than the following year (e.g., during the 2023 growing season).
    (Comment 7) Some comments requested additional outreach and
education as FDA explores modifications to the agricultural water
testing provisions.
    (Response 7) FDA intends to continue to work with an array of
stakeholders to explore and address the concerns around subpart E. As
described above, we will be implementing a rigorous stakeholder
engagement plan over the course of several months. If we determine that
changes to subpart E are necessary, that would require notice and
comment rulemaking and thus the public would have an opportunity to
comment on any proposed changes. If we determine that we can address
concerns through guidance, such a guidance would be considered ``Level
1'' and would be subject to the notice and comment procedures outlined
in Sec.  10.115(g), which is part of FDA's Good Guidance Practices
regulations. We also remain committed to working with covered farms to
prepare for compliance, through outreach, training and education, and
other collaboration.
    (Comment 8) Some comments stated the proposed extension is contrary
to Congress' intent and the plain language of FSMA, noting that the
statute included a deadline for the produce safety final rule.
    (Response 8) We do not agree that delaying the compliance date for
subpart E is contrary to Congress's intent or the plain language of the
statute. FSMA required FDA to establish science- and risk-based minimum
standards for the safe production and harvesting of produce for human
consumption (see section 419(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
350h(a)(1)(A))), which we have done by promulgating the produce safety
regulation. Extending the compliance dates for subpart E (for covered
produce other than sprouts) will allow us to evaluate how we can either
improve the requirements or implement them in a way that is less
confusing and more workable for covered farms, in light of the feedback
we have received about subpart E, while still protecting the public
health.
    Although FSMA includes deadlines for issuing the proposed and final
rules, there is nothing in the language or spirit of the statute that
is contrary to FDA doing its due diligence to examine how we can
achieve the public health regulatory objectives contained in the rule
in a way that is more practical for covered farms. We reiterate that we
are not changing the compliance dates for the entire produce safety
regulation, just subpart E for covered produce other than sprouts.
    (Comment 9) Comments stated that FDA should clearly communicate its
expectations of agricultural water users during the extension.
    (Response 9) With this final rule, we are extending the compliance
dates for subpart E of the produce safety regulation for covered
produce other than sprouts. FDA will therefore not expect growers of
covered produce (other than sprouts) to implement subpart E until the
new compliance dates. In the meantime, farms should focus their
attention on good agricultural practices to maintain and protect the
quality of their water sources. (See, e.g., FDA's ``Guide to Minimize
Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables,'' at
https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ucm064574.htm). Farms currently
testing their water may choose to continue with their current water
testing programs, and farms that are not currently testing their water
may choose to begin doing so.

IV. Economic Analysis of Impacts

    We have examined the impacts of this rule under Executive Order
12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13771, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to
assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and,
when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts;
and equity). Executive Order 13771 requires that the costs associated
with significant new regulations ``shall, to the extent permitted by
law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at
least two prior regulations.'' We believe that this final rule is an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze
regulatory options that will minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Because this final rule only extends the compliance
dates for certain provisions of the produce safety regulation, we
certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires
us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ``any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after

adjustment for inflation is $150 million, using the most current (2017)
Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This final rule
will not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds
this amount.
    This rule extends, for non-sprout covered produce, the compliance
date for all of the provisions of subpart E to 4 years after the
relevant farm's compliance date for all other provisions of the produce
safety regulation (which varies based on establishment size). The
estimated costs and benefits accrued in any given year of compliance
with the produce safety regulation, relative to the first year of
compliance, do not change. However, because the compliance dates for
certain provisions are extended, the discounted value of both total
costs and total benefits decrease.
    In the final regulatory impact analysis of subpart E of the produce
safety regulation, we only considered Sec. Sec.  112.42, 112.44,
112.45(a)(2), 112.45(b)(3), 112.46(b), and 112.46(c) to result in a
cost. Therefore, while subpart E has other provisions, only the
aforementioned provisions are relevant to and addressed in this cost
and benefit analysis.
    There is a reduction in costs (i.e., cost savings) associated with
extending, for non-sprout covered produce, the compliance date for all
of the provisions of subpart E to 4 years after the relevant farm's
compliance date for the rest of the produce safety regulation. With
respect to their non-sprout covered produce, covered farms have 4 years
from the compliance date for the other provisions of produce safety
regulation to comply with the provisions in subpart E. Thus, while all
initial startup costs and recurring costs remain the same as estimated
in the final regulatory impact analysis for the produce safety
regulation (Ref. 1), the annualized total costs, discounted at 3 (7)
percent over 10 years, decrease from $291 ($265) million to $280 ($254)
million, resulting in a savings of $12 ($10) million.\3\ The present
value of total costs, discounted at 3 (7) percent over 10 years,
decreases from about $2.5 ($1.9) billion to about $2.4 ($1.8) billion,
resulting in a savings of about $99 ($74) million. No additional costs
would be incurred by state, local, and tribal governments or the
private sector as a result of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The $12 million and $10 million figures are rounded. The
costs decrease from $291.5 ($264.8) million to $279.8 ($254.3)
million, resulting in a savings of $11.6 ($10.5) million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is a reduction in benefits associated with extending the
compliance dates as described previously. Consumers eating non-sprout
covered produce will not enjoy the potential health benefits (i.e.,
reduced risk of illness) provided by the provisions of subpart E until
2 to 4 years (depending on the specific provision) later than
originally established in the produce safety regulation. Thus, the
annualized total benefits to consumers, discounted at 3 (7) percent
over 10 years, decrease by $104 ($96) million from $800 ($740) million
to $696 ($644) million. The present value of total benefits, discounted
at 3 (7) percent over 10 years, decreases from about $6.8 ($5.2)
billion to about $5.9 ($4.5) billion. Estimated changes in benefits and
costs as a result of this extension are summarized in the following
table.

                 Table 5--Summary of Changes to Benefits and Costs as a Result of the Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Units
                                                      Primary    -----------------------------------------------
                    Category                         estimate                      Discount rate
                                                                   Year dollars         (%)       Period covered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forgone Benefits:
    Annualized..................................             $96            2017               7       2016-2025
    Monetized $millions/year....................             104            2017               3       2016-2025
Forgone Costs:
    Annualized..................................              10            2017               7       2016-2025
    Monetized $millions/year....................              12            2017               3       2016-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In line with Executive Order 13771, in table 6 we estimate present
and annualized values of costs and cost savings over an infinite time
horizon. Based on these cost-savings, this final rule will be
considered a deregulatory action under Executive Order 13771.

    Table 6--Executive Order 13771 Summary Table (in $ Millions 2016
                 Dollars, Over an Infinite Time Horizon)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Primary         Primary
                  Item                     estimate (7%)   estimate (3%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value of Cost Savings...........             $72             $97
Annualized Cost Savings.................               5               3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have developed a comprehensive Economic Analysis of Impacts that
assesses the impacts of the final rule. The full analysis of economic
impacts is available in the docket for this rule (Ref. 2) at https://www.regulations.gov, and at https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/default.htm.

V. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(j) that this action is of a
type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This rule contains no collection of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

VII. Federalism

    We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles set
forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does
not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule
does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined
in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact
statement is not required.

VIII. Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles set
forth in Executive Order 13175. We have determined that the rule does
not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Accordingly, we
conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have tribal
implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a
tribal summary impact statement is not required.

IX. References

    The following references are on display in the Dockets Management
Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852 and are available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has
verified the website addresses, as of the date this document publishes
in the Federal Register, but websites are subject to change over time.
    1. FDA, ``Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, Standards for the
Growing, Harvesting, Packing and Holding of Produce for Human
Consumption.'' November 2015. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/ucm472310.htm.
    2. FDA, ``Final Regulatory Impact Analysis, Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis for the
Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce
for Human Consumption; Extension of Compliance Dates for Subpart E;
Final Rule,'' 2019. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/.

    Dated: March 6, 2019.
Scott Gottlieb,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[FR Doc. 2019-04652 Filed 3-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26771-26774]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09517]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88765; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Add New Exchange Rule 46B To Permit the Appointment of Regulatory
Trading Officials and Amend Exchange Rule 47 To Permit Regulatory
Trading Officials To Review Whether a Bid or Offer Is Eligible for
Inclusion in the Closing Auction

April 29, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On January 14, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to add new Exchange Rule 46B to permit the
appointment of Regulatory Trading Officials and corresponding
amendments to Rules 47 and 75 to permit Regulatory Trading Officials to
review whether a bid or offer was verbalized at the point of sale in
time to be eligible for inclusion in the Closing Auction. The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on
January 30, 2020.\3\ On March 11, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which to
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission has received no comment letters
on the proposal. On April 7, 2020, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change,\6\ which replaced and superseded the
proposed rule change as originally filed, and is described in Items II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization.\7\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1,
from interested persons, and is approving the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88033 (Jan. 24,
2020), 85 FR 5511 (Jan. 30, 2020) (``Notice'').
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88357 (Mar. 11,
2020), 85 FR 15241 (Mar.17, 2020). The Commission designated April
29, 2020, as the date by which the Commission should approve,
disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change.
    \6\ See Sections II and III for a description of Amendment No.
1. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange no longer proposes changes to
Exchange rule 75.
    \7\ The proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is
available at: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/rule-filings/filings/2020/SR-NYSE-2020-03,%20Am.%201.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes a new Rule 46B to permit the appointment of
Regulatory Trading Officials and corresponding amendments to Rule 47 to
permit Regulatory Trading Officials to review whether a bid or offer is
eligible for inclusion in the Closing Auction. This Amendment No. 1 to
SR-NYSE-2020-03 replaces SR-NYSE-2020-03 as originally filed and
supersedes such filing in its entirety. This proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at

the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes a new Rule 46B to permit the appointment of
Regulatory Trading Officials and corresponding amendments to Rule 47 to
permit Regulatory Trading Officials to review whether a bid or offer is
eligible for inclusion in the Closing Auction.
Background
    Rule 46 permits the Exchange to appoint active NYSE members \8\ as
Floor Officials. Rule 46 also permits the Exchange to appoint
``qualified'' \9\ ICE employees to act as Floor Governors, one of the
more senior types of Floor Officials (``Staff Governors'').\10\ Floor
Officials are delegated certain authority from the Board of Directors
of the Exchange to supervise and regulate active openings and unusual
situations that arise in connection with the making of bids, offers or
transactions on the Trading Floor,\11\ and to review and approve
certain trading actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rule 2(a) states that the term ``member,'' when referring to
a natural person, means a natural person associated with a member
organization who has been approved by the Exchange and designated by
such member organization to effect transactions on the Exchange
Trading Floor or any facility thereof. See also note 11, infra.
    \9\ Supplementary Material .10 defines ``qualified'' employees
as ``employees of ICE or any of its subsidiaries, excluding
employees of NYSE Regulation, Inc., who shall have satisfied any
applicable testing or qualification required by the NYSE for all
Floor Governors.''
    \10\ Pursuant to Rules 46 and 46A, Floor Governors are one of
several ranks of the broader category of Floor Officials, including,
in order of increasing seniority, Floor Officials, Senior Floor
Officials, Executive Floor Officials, Floor Governors and Executive
Floor Governors. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57627
(April 4, 2008), 73 FR 19919 (April 11, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-19).
    \11\ The term ``Trading Floor'' is defined in Rule 6A to mean
the restricted-access physical areas designated by the Exchange for
the trading of securities, commonly known as the ``Main Room'' and
the ``Buttonwood Room.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, only Floor Officials are authorized to act under the
Exchange's rules in connection with certain situations involving bids,
offers or transactions on the Trading Floor. Specifically, under Rule
47 (Floor Officials--Unusual Situations), Floor Officials have the
authority to ``supervise and regulate active openings and unusual
situations that may arise in connection with the making of bids, offers
or transactions on the Floor.''
    Unusual situations may arise that could impede or prevent Floor
brokers from representing customer interest before the end of Core
Trading Hours.\12\ Unusual situations may arise, for example, if the
Floor broker hand-held device malfunctions or ceases to work or if a
Floor broker is physically impeded, as a result of a crowd condition
beyond that of normal traffic flow on the Exchange's trading Floor or
some other circumstance beyond the Floor broker's control, in his or
her ability to be present at a post before the DMM closes the
security.\13\ In the event of such a potentially unusual situation, a
Floor broker may consult with a Floor Official and the Designated
Market Maker (``DMM'') in the relevant security regarding whether and
how that customer interest can be represented so that it is eligible to
participate in the Closing Auction.\14\ The Floor Official's role in
this consultation is to provide an impartial professional assessment of
the situation consistent with NYSE Rule 47. Currently, the DMM makes
the final determination whether to include or exclude Floor broker
verbal interest in the Closing Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NYSE Rule 52. Core Trading Hours are defined in Rule
1.1(d) to mean the hours of 9:30 a.m. ET through 4:00 p.m. ET, or
such other hours as may be determined by the Exchange, for example,
an early scheduled closing time.
    \13\ See NYSE Member Education Bulletin 19-01 (June 21, 2019).
    \14\ Floor broker buy and sell interest is eligible to
participate in the Closing Auction if, by the end of Core Trading
Hours, such interest is (1) entered into an Exchange system and
recorded in accordance with Rule 123(e), and (2) either entered
electronically or verbally represented at the point of sale. When
verbally representing customer interest, Floor brokers must bid or
offer by articulating the following elements: Symbol, side (buy or
sell), size, and, if the order is a limit order, the price. See
Member Education Bulletin 19-01 (June 21, 2019); see generally Rule
123(b) (record of orders must contain the required terms of the
order, including the name and amount of the security, the terms of
the order and the time when such order was received).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes a new ``Regulatory Trading Official'' who
would perform the functions currently performed by Floor Officials
regarding whether a bid or offer is eligible for inclusion in the
Closing Auction by the DMM. Floor Officials would continue to supervise
and regulate all other unusual situations not enumerated for the
Regulatory Trading Official to perform.
    To effectuate this change, the Exchange proposes a new Rule 46B
that would provide that a Regulatory Trading Official would be an
Exchange employee or officer designated by the Chief Regulatory Officer
or its designee to perform the functions specified in Exchange rules.
The Exchange further proposes to amend Rule 47 to specify the functions
that would be performed by the Regulatory Trading Official.
    First, the existing rule text of Rule 47 would be designated
subsection (a) and would be amended to specify that whether a verbal
bid or verbal offer is eligible for inclusion in the Closing Auction by
a DMM would be governed by new subsection (b) to Rule 47. This
amendment therefore carves out the Floor Official's specific function
with respect to unusual situations that would no longer be performed by
Floor Officials.
    Second, proposed new Rule 47(b) would set forth the authority of
Regulatory Trading Officials. As proposed, subsection (b) would provide
that situations regarding whether a verbal bid or verbal offer is
eligible for inclusion in the Closing Auction by the DMM shall be
supervised and regulated as follows in the proposed rule. Under the
proposed rule, a Floor broker with the interest to be included in the
Closing Auction or the DMM responsible for the Closing Auction in the
relevant security may consult a Regulatory Trading Official regarding
whether a bid or offer is eligible for inclusion in the Closing Auction
by the DMM. Proposed Rule 47(b) would also provide that if such a
request has been made, the DMM will not facilitate the Closing Auction
until a Regulatory Trading Official has completed his or her review.
The proposed rule would also provide, consistent with current rules,
that the final determination to include or exclude interest from the
Closing Auction will be made by the DMM pursuant to Rule 104. Finally,
proposed Rule 47(b) would specify that the Regulatory Trading
Official's review will be documented in Exchange systems no later than
one business day following the review.
    The Exchange believes that it is more appropriate for a regulatory
employee to review the eligibility of Floor broker interest in the
Closing Auction. Whether a bid or offer is eligible for inclusion in
the Closing Auction, including whether

such a bid or offer was verbalized at the point of sale in time to be
eligible for the Closing Auction, will often require assessing whether
a Floor broker complied with the rules for entry of its interest prior
to the Closing Auction.\15\ The Exchange believes that having a
regulatory employee involved in such discussions will emphasize the
importance of including all eligible Floor broker interest in the
Closing Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See note 14, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\16\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ in particular, because it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that creating a new category
of trading official to perform the functions currently performed by
Floor Officials in reviewing whether a bid or offer is eligible for
inclusion in the Closing Auction would promote just and equitable
principles of trade and remove impediments to a free and open market by
continuing to provide certainty to the Closing Auction when a dispute
arises at the point of sale regarding whether a bid or offer can
participate in the Closing Auction, thereby facilitating fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. The
Exchange's Closing Auction is a recognized industry reference
point,\18\ and the Exchange believes that maintaining the current
process with a regulatory employee would continue to promote the
efficient execution of the Closing Auction, thereby contributing to
fair and orderly markets and strengthening investor confidence in the
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For example, the pricing and valuation of certain indices,
funds, and derivative products require primary market prints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that assigning responsibility for reviewing
whether Floor broker interest was eligible for inclusion in the Closing
Auction to a regulatory employee designated by the Chief Regulatory
Officer will contribute to the protection of investors and the public
interest. As noted above, the Exchange believes that regulatory
employees are appropriately suited to the role of consultation
regarding the eligibility of Floor broker interest, including verbal
interest, to participate in the Closing Auction. The Exchange also
believes the proposed amendments further the goal of transparency and
add clarity to the Exchange's rules, which would not be inconsistent
with the public interest and the protection of investors because
investors would not be harmed and in fact would benefit from such
increased transparency and clarity in the Exchange's rules, thereby
reducing potential confusion.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal
is consistent with the Act.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address and competitive issues, but rather assign
responsibility for reviewing eligibility of verbal interest for
inclusion in the Closing Auction to a regulatory employee. Since the
proposal does not substantively modify the Closing Auction or system
functionality, the proposed changes will not impose any burden on
competition.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

IV. Solicitation of Comments on the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified
by Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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-NYSE-2020-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2020-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 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. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2020-03 and should be submitted on
or before May 26, 2020.

V. Commission's Findings and Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\19\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \20\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market

and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest, and that the rules not be designed to permit
unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In approving this proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to permit the appointment of a new
``Regulatory Trading Official'' \21\ whose primary responsibility would
be to conduct reviews of unusual situations involving the eligibility
of verbal interest for inclusion in the Closing Auction by the DMM. The
proposal would also provide that if a request for such a review by a
Regulatory Trading Official has been made, the DMM will not facilitate
the Closing Auction until a Regulatory Trading Official has completed
his or her review. As proposed, the final determination to include or
exclude interest from the Closing Auction would continue to be made by
the DMM pursuant to Exchange Rule 104. Finally, the proposal would
specify that the Regulatory Trading Official's review will be
documented in Exchange systems no later than one business day following
the review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ As proposed, a Regulatory Trading Employee would be an
Exchange employee or officer designated by the Chief Regulatory
Officer or its designee to perform those functions specified in
Exchange rules. See supra, Section III.A.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the proposal would shift one regulatory
function--the review, in cases involving unusual situations, of whether
a verbal bid or verbal offer is eligible for inclusion in the Closing
Auction by the DMM--from Floor Officials to the newly proposed
Regulatory Trading Officials without substantive change.\22\ The new
proposed Regulatory Trading Officials would be Exchange employees or
officers who would perform this discrete consultative function at the
close. The Commission further notes that, as proposed, and consistent
with current rules, the final determination as to whether to include or
exclude interest in the Closing Auction would continue to be made by
the DMM pursuant to Rule 104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represented that Floor Officials currently review
cases involving unusual situations that may arise with regard to
whether a verbal bid or verbal offer is eligible for inclusion in the
Closing Auction by the DMM. The Commission believes that a Regulatory
Trading Official whose sole responsibility would be to perform this
specific function currently performed by Floor Officials and who is a
regulatory employee is appropriately suited to the role of consultation
regarding the eligibility of Floor broker interest. The Commission
believes that the proposal should promote just and equitable principles
of trade by continuing to provide Floor brokers with the ability to
consult with and obtain a review from a third party in cases involving
unusual situations relating to the eligibility of the Floor broker's
verbal interest to participate in the close.
    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.

VI. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of notice of the filing of Amendment No.
1 in the Federal Register. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange moved the
substance of the proposal from Rule 75 commentary into the text of Rule
47 without substantive change. Accordingly, the Commission believes the
proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1 raises no novel or significant
issues, and therefore finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act, to approve the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an
accelerated basis.

VII. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2020-03), as modified by
Amendment No. 1 be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-09517 Filed 5-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 31535]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11180]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4496-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Massachusetts; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-4496-DR), dated
March 27, 2020, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued March 27, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 27, 2020, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts resulting from the Coronavirus Disease
2019 (COVID-19) pandemic beginning on January 20, 2020, and
continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a
major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance limited to
the Crisis Counseling Program and assistance for emergency
protective measures (Category B), including direct Federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program throughout the
Commonwealth. Consistent with the requirement that Federal
assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the
Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of
the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, W. Russell Webster, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Individual Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program
in all areas in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
    Emergency protective measures (Category B) not authorized under
other Federal statutes, including direct Federal assistance, under
the Public Assistance program at 75 percent federal funding for all
areas in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-11180 Filed 5-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37962-37963]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket Nos. FDA-2011-C-0344 and FDA-2011-C-0463]

Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification; Reactive
Blue 246 and Reactive Blue 247 Copolymers; Confirmation of Effective
Date

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is confirming the
effective date of May 2, 2013, for the final rule that published in the
Federal Register of April 1, 2013 (78 FR 19413), and that amended the
color additive regulations to provide for the safe use of additional
copolymers of 1,4-bis[4-(2-methacryloxyethyl)phenylamino]anthraquinone
(C.I. Reactive Blue 246) and copolymers of 1,4-bis[(2-
hydroxyethyl)amino]-9,10-anthracenedione bis(2-methyl-2-propenoic)ester
(C.I. Reactive Blue 247) as color additives in contact lenses.

DATES: Effective date confirmed: May 2, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding CAP 1C0291 (C.I. Reactive
Blue 246): Judith Kidwell, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.,
College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Regarding CAP 1C0292 (C.I.
Reactive Blue 247): Teresa Croce, Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch
Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of April 1, 2013, we
amended the color additive regulations in Sec. Sec.  73.3100 and
73.3106 (21 CFR 73.3100 and 73.3106), respectively, to provide for the
safe use of additional copolymers of 1,4-bis[(2-hydroxyethyl)amino]-
9,10-anthracenedione bis(2-methyl-2-propenoic)ester (C.I. Reactive Blue
247) and additional copolymers of 1,4-bis[4-(2-
methacryloxyethyl)phenylamino] corrected the nomenclature for Reactive
Blue 247 by inserting ``2-methyl'' before ``2-propenoic.''
    We gave interested persons until May 1, 2013, to file objections or
requests for a hearing. We received no objections or requests for a
hearing on the final rule. Therefore, we find that the effective date
of the final rule that published in the Federal Register of April 1,
2013, should be confirmed.
    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, and
redelegated to the Director, Office of Food Additive Safety, we are
giving notice that no objections or requests for a hearing were filed
in response to the April 1, 2013, final rule. Accordingly, the
amendments issued thereby became effective May 2, 2013.

    Dated: June 18, 2013.
Susan M. Bernard,
Director, Office of Regulations, Policy and Social Sciences, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
[FR Doc. 2013-15111 Filed 6-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


Harvey Richmond/RTP/USEPA/US

10/31/2007 04:50 PM

To

"Johansson, Robert"<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Crabtree.Tricia@epamail.epa.gov@EPA

Subject

Fw: Response to your follow-up questions on contribution of ranges to nonaccidental mortality associated with ozone just meeting current standard   AND Two Ozone public comments

As we discussed earlier today, here's the email with the files that Lydia sent in the Spring with tables showing the contribution of ranges to nonaccidental mortality associated with ozone just meeting the current standard.

You also requested the docket id's for two of the public comments.  I have the docket id for the UARG, October 9, 2007 comments and it is: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0172-4183.  I haven't located the docket id for the Univ. of Rochester report, but I do have an electronic file for this report, which I've attached below.

Harvey

    Harvey M. Richmond

    Ambient Standards Group

    Health and Environmental Impacts Division

    U.S. EPA

    C504-06

    RTP, NC  27711

    (office)<PHONE_NUMBER>

    (fax)<PHONE_NUMBER>

    (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS> ----- Forwarded by Harvey Richmond/RTP/USEPA/US on 10/31/2007 04:40 PM -----

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

05/08/2007 10:26 AM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

Response to your follow-up questions on contribution of ranges to nonaccidental mortality associated with ozone just meeting current standard

Amy, Art and Rob,

Please find attached Harvey's response to Art's question about the contribution of different levels of ozone to nonaccidental mortality.   I hope this answers your questions.  Please let me know if you have further questions about this material.

Rob, as to our Friday meeting that we discussed this morning, I learned that Harvey will not be available on Friday.  I don't know if any of your follow-up questions are about the risk assessment, but if they are, we will have to postpone those to next week when Harvey is available, or move the meeting back to Thursday.  If none of the questions are about the risk assessment, we should be able to proceed with our Friday meeting as planned.   Thanks.

Lydia

----- Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/08/2007 10:16 AM -----

Harvey Richmond/RTP/USEPA/US

05/08/2007 10:00 AM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Dave Mckee/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Re: Follow-up to CEQ question on contribution of ranges to nonaccidental mortality associated with ozone just meeting current standard

Lydia,

In response to the request from OMB made during the meetings arranged by CEQ, attached are two Excel files that contain tables showing the estimated number of cases, and associated 95% credible intervals, for nonaccidental mortality based on the risk assessment broken down by the number of cases estimated to occur due to exposure to different 24-hr O3 intervals associated with just meeting the current 8-hr standard in 12 urban areas.  The tables, and Figure 5-15a,b in the Staff Paper, present risks broken down by 24-hr intervals because the epidemiological studies report effects related to the average of the 24-hr concentrations across the monitors in an urban area.  To provide some perspective on the daily maximum 8-hr average that would be associated with each 24-hr interval, we note that the 8-hr daily maximum concentrations at the highest (i.e., design value) monitor are, on average, roughly twice the 24-hr average O3 concentrations provided in these tables.  For example, the 0.03-0.04 ppm 24-hr range in the table roughly corresponds to the highest monitor in the urban area observing a daily maximum 8-hr average in the range 0.06-0.08 ppm.

    Harvey M. Richmond

    Ambient Standards Group

    Health and Environmental Impacts Division

    U.S. EPA

    C504-06

    RTP, NC  27711

    (office)<PHONE_NUMBER>

    (fax)<PHONE_NUMBER>

    (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>