[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 194 (Thursday, October 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 62058]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR11-130-000]

Southcross Alabama Pipeline LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on September 28, 2011, Southcross Alabama Pipeline
LLC (SAGS) submitted a revised Statement of Operating Conditions for
services provided under Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of
1978 (``NGPA''). SAGS's filing proposes a name change from Enterprise
Alabama Intrastate, LLC to Southcross Alabama Pipeline LLC, as more
fully detailed in the petition.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Dated: September 29, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-25832 Filed 10-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 156)]
[Notices]
[Page 41176-41177]
[DOCID:fr14au09-84]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60473; August 10, 2009]

Order Providing NRSROs a Temporary Exemption From the Requirement
in Rule 17g-2(d) (Incorporating the Provisions of Rule 17g-2(a)(8)) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 That CUSIP Numbers Be Displayed

I. Background

    The Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006 (``Rating Agency Act'')
\1\ defined the term ``nationally recognized statistical rating
organization''

(``NRSRO'') and provided authority for the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') to implement registration, recordkeeping,
financial reporting, and oversight rules with respect to registered
credit rating agencies. The regulations implemented by the Commission
pursuant to this mandate include Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') Rule 17g-2,\2\ which requires an NRSRO to make and
retain certain records relating to its business and to retain certain
other business records made in the normal course of business
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 109-291 (2006).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.17g-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 2, 2009, the Commission adopted amendments to its NRSRO
rules imposing additional requirements on NRSROs in order to address
concerns about the integrity of their credit rating procedures and
methodologies.\3\ Among other things, the rule amendments added new
paragraphs (a)(8) and (d) to Rule 17g-2. New paragraph (a)(8) of Rule
17g-2 requires an NRSRO to make and retain a record for each
outstanding credit rating it maintains showing all rating actions
(initial rating, upgrades, downgrades, placements on watch for upgrade
or downgrade, and withdrawals) ``identified by the name of the rated
security or obligor and, if applicable, the CUSIP of the rated security
or the Central Index Key (CIK) number of the rated obligor.'' \4\ New
paragraph (d) of Rule 17g-2 requires an NRSRO to make publicly
available, on a six-month delayed basis, the ratings histories for a
random sample of 10% of the credit ratings paid for by the obligor
being rated or by the issuer, underwriter, or sponsor of the security
being rated (``issuer-paid credit ratings'') pursuant to paragraph
(a)(8) of Rule 17g-2 for each class of credit rating for which the
NRSRO is registered and has issued 500 or more issuer-paid credit
ratings.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Amendments to Rules for Nationally Recognized
Statistical Rating Organizations, Exchange Act Release No. 59342
(February 2, 2009), 74 FR 6456 (``February 2009 Adopting Release'').
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.17g-2(a)(8).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.17g-2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph (d) of Rule 17g-2 further requires that this information
be made public on the NRSRO's corporate Internet Web site in eXtensible
Business Reporting Language (``XBRL'') format.\6\ The rule provides
that in preparing the XBRL disclosure, an NRSRO must use the List of
XBRL Tags for NRSROs as specified on the Commission's Web site.\7\ The
Commission established a compliance date of August 10, 2009 for this
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id. The February 2009 Adopting Release specified a
compliance date of 180 days after publication in the Federal
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The XBRL tags are not yet available. Therefore, the Commission
issued a Notice on August 5, 2009 that an NRSRO subject to the
disclosure provisions of Rule 17g-2(d) can satisfy the requirement to
make publicly available ratings history information in an XBRL format
by using an XBRL format or any other machine readable format until such
time as the Commission provides further notice.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Notice Regarding the Requirement to Use eXtensible Business
Reporting Language Format to Make Publicly Available the Information
Required Pursuant to Rule 17g-2(d) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act
Release No. 60451, August 5, 2009 (``August 5, 2009 Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the required rating actions information includes,
if applicable, the CUSIP of each rated security and the CIK number of
each rated obligor. Although CIK numbers are available free of charge
on the Commission's Web site, CUSIPs are owned and distributed by
private parties.
    Subsequent to the issuance of the August 5, 2009 Notice, several
NRSROs have notified Commission staff that, despite their efforts, they
have not been able to resolve certain issues with the managers of the
CUSIP program. The Commission believes, however, that users of credit
ratings would benefit from having ratings action information available
by the August 10, 2009 implementation date for Rule 17g-2(d), even if
CUSIP numbers are not included for a limited time. We note that
identifying information, such as the name of the security, will be
included.
    For these reasons, the Commission finds that providing NRSROs a
partial temporary exemption from Rule 17g-2(d) (incorporating the
provisions of Rule 17g-2(a)(8)) is necessary and appropriate in the
public interest and is consistent with the protection of investors.\9\
Therefore, the Commission is providing NRSROs with a 30-day exemption
from the requirement in Rule 17g-2(d) (incorporating the provisions of
Rule 17g-2(a)(8)) that the CUSIP for each rated security be included
with the ratings action information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Section 36 of the Exchange Act authorizes the Commission, by
rule, regulation, or order, to conditionally or unconditionally
exempt any person from any rule under the Exchange Act, to the
extent that the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and is consistent with the protection of investors. 15
U.S.C. 78mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Conclusion

    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act,
    It is hereby ordered that NRSROs are temporarily exempt from the
requirement in Rule 17g-2(d) (incorporating the provisions of Rule 17g-
2(a)(8)) that the CUSIP for each rated security be included with the
ratings action information for thirty days, until September 9, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19478 Filed 8-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 April 13, 2006 OFFICE OF PREVENTION PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Memorandum SUBJECT: Biological and Economic Analysis of Dichlorvos for Food Storage Areas FROM: Don Atwood, Entomologist Biological Analysis Branch TJ Wyatt, Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branch Tim Kiely, Acting Chief Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

TO: Dayton Eckerson/ Eric Olson, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch 1 Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

PRP REVIEW DATE: March 31, 2006 SUMMARY Available data indicate that dichlorvos is the major insecticide used to control pests in food storage areas. BEAD believes that pyrethrin would be the insecticide of choice in the absence of dichlorvos. However, pyrethrin is not as volatile as dichlorvos and therefore individual applications of pyrethrin do not treat equivalent areas as dichlorvos. In addition, 1 to 4 ( average 2.5) applications of pyrethrin would be necessary to achieve the same efficacy as currently provided by dichlorvos. Based on the increased number of applications, BEAD estimates that a move from dichlorvos to pyrethrin would cost an additional $ 24 million dollars annually in the US. Considering the unique properties of dichlorvos, the increased number of applications of pyrethrin required to achieve equivalent efficacy, and the additional cost of pyrethrin, BEAD concludes that there is an important need for the use of dichlorvos to control food storage pests. 2 I. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF ASSESSMENT The scope of this assessment is at the national level. This mitigation scenario is in response to the health risks identified by the Health Effects Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs.

There are limits to this assessment. The primary limit is the lack of available data associated with usage of dichlorvos in food storage area. The assessment relies primarily upon state insecticide recommendations for stored product and pantry pests and usage information from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. In addition, this assessment relies heavily on the EPA benefit assessment conducted in 1993. In the absence of efficacy data for dichlorvos alternatives, this assessment assumes that alternatives as recommended by the states can provide efficacy equivalent to dichlorvos. In addition, fumigants were not considered in this assessment as they are used to control infestations rather than prevent infestations and therefore are not direct replacements for dichlorvos.

II. FOOD STORAGE AREA DICHLORVOS USAGE Dichlorvos for use in controlling pests of food storage areas is supplied as a soluble concentrate and generally applied as space treatment to prevent pest infestations from developing ( preventative). Current dichlorvos usage data for this site is only available for California ( Table 1). Dichlorvos is the primary insecticide used for insect control in food storage areas, representing 67% of total area treated with insecticides.

Table 1. Insecticide usage in California Food Processing and Handling Plants 2000.

Insecticide # of Applications Area treated ( 1,000 cu. ft) Area treated per application ( 1,000 cu. ft.) % total area treated cyfluthrin 1 210 210 0.1 dichlorvos 31 133,000 4290 67.2 pyrethrin 42 64,841 1543 32.7 It is estimated that 50,000 lbs of dichlorvos are used per year to control pests in food storage areas. At an application rate of 1  2 grams per 1,000 cu ft and assuming 12 applications per year, it is estimated that 0.9  1.8 billion cu ft of food storage area is treated per year in the US. 3 III. USE OF DICHLORVOS TO CONTROL PESTS OF FOOD STORAGE AREAS The most common insects infesting food storage areas are in the insect orders Lepidoptera ( moths) and Coleoptera ( beetles). Dichlorvos is used as a soluble concentrate in food storage areas to control a wide range of stored product insects including but not limited to; cigarette beetle, warehouse beetle, sawtoothed grain beetle, rice weevil, confused flour beetle, cocoa bean moth, Mediterranean flour moth, and Indianmeal moth.

Food storage area pests damage products through contamination with their bodies and their by products. The larval stage of the Indianmeal moth produces frass ( excrement) and webbing, and some beetle larvae produce secretions that give food a disagreeable odor and taste. Setae ( hairs) from the warehouse beetle can irritate the mouth, throat, and stomach of people who eat infested products and can be a choking hazard to young children and pets. In addition, food storage area pests can introduce microbes into the food products that could produce mycotoxins ( highly carcinogenic compounds), especially if the food is stored in warm, humid conditions.

A. FOOD STORAGE AREA PESTS CONTROLLED WITH DICHLORVOS 1. Flour/ grain moths  The most common species of meal moths found in the food storage areas are the Indianmeal moth and Mediterranean flour moth. All damage is done by the larvae, which attack a wide range of products, including cereal and cereal products, flour, cornmeal, rice, dried fruit, dehydrated vegetables, nuts, chocolate, candies, and other confections.

2. Weevils/ beetles  There are several species of beetles which commonly attack a wide variety of foods: the warehouse beetle; the sawtoothed grain beetle and the merchant grain beetle; the confused flour beetle and the red flour beetle; and the drugstore beetle and the cigarette beetle.

a. Warehouse Beetle  The warehouse beetle feeds on a wide variety of foods including cereals, candy, cocoa, cookies, cornmeal, fish meal, pet foods, flour, nuts, dried peas and beans, pastas, potato chips, spices, dead animals, and dead insects. The setae of this beetle are shed within the infested food product and can be irritating to the mouth, esophagus, and digestive tract if they are ingested; consequently any food found infested with this beetle should be discarded.

b. Sawtoothed Grain Beetle and Merchant Grain Beetle  In both larval and adult stages, these beetles feed on all food of plant origin, especially grain and grain products like flours, meals, breakfast foods, stock and poultry feeds, coconut, nut meats, candies, and dried fruit; it is not uncommon to find these beetles infesting pet 4 food, bird seed, and rodent bait.

c. Confused Flour Beetle and Red Flour Beetle  These beetles have a very wide food range including cereals, damaged grains, grain products, shelled nuts, dried fruit, chocolate, drugs, and herbarium and museum specimens.

d. Cigarette Beetle and Drugstore Beetle  The cigarette beetle feeds on cured tobacco, cigarettes, and cigars. It also feeds on dried herbs, spices, nuts, cereals and cereal products, dried fruit, seeds, and animal products such as dried fish and meats, hair, and wool. In the home this beetle is most commonly found in pet foods, cereals, nuts, and candy. It may also infest dried pepper arrangements, wreaths, and spices such as chili powder or paprika.

The drugstore beetle is a very general feeder, attacking a great variety of stored foods, seeds, pet foods, spices, and pastry mixes, and has been said to " eat anything except cast iron." It gets its name from its habit of feeding on almost all drugs found in pharmacies.

e. Rice/ grain weevils  These insects generally damage whole grains or seeds, but also have been observed feeding on nuts and beans. They generally do not feed on flour or cereals unless it has become caked.

IV. ALTERNATIVE INSECTICIDES TO DICHLORVOS FOR CONTROLLING FOOD STORAGE AREA PESTS Numerous pesticides are registered to control pests in food storage areas ( Table 2). Most registered products are effective against both moths and beetles. Fumigants were not included as they are used to eliminate infestations where dichlorvos is used to prevent infestations. In most cases, pesticides will only provide a temporary solution for controlling pests in food storage areas.

Table 2. Alternative insecticides available to control pests in food storage areas as of 2003.

PEST CLASS ACTIVE INGREDIENT Biological permethrin Insect Growth Regulator methoprene Carbamate propoxur acephate Stored Food Insects Organophosphate chlorpyrifos 5 PEST CLASS ACTIVE INGREDIENT diazinon propetamphos cyfluthrin deltamethrin allethrin pyrethrins tetramethrin tralomethrin resmethrin phenothrin esfenvalerate imiprothrin Pyrethroids sumithrin Sticky traps pheromone bait However, while there are a number of registered pesticides, usage data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation for 2000 ( Table 1), indicates that dichlorvos and pyrethrin are the only 2 primary insecticides used for control of pests in food storage areas.

V. NONCHEMICAL CONTROL OF FOOD STORAGE AREA PESTS Numerous non chemical alternatives are available for control of pests in food storage areas. These include temperature modification ( heat or cold), atmosphere modification, irradiation, electric zappers, traps ( light and pheromone), biological control ( parasites/ predators/ pathogens), and sanitation. However, the use of some of these alternatives would require extensive facility modification at high cost. In addition, use of alternative controls is dependent upon target pest, pest density, type of storage facility, and commodity. With additional research, control of pests in food storage areas could be achieved using some of these nonchemical alternatives alone or in combination. However, at present, nonchemical alternatives are best used to augment conventional pest control programs using insecticides.

VI. BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF DICHLORVOS FOR FOOD STORAGE AREA PESTS 6 Numerous alternative insecticides are registered to control pests in food storage areas. However, as most of the alternative insecticides registered for food storage area pest control are surface sprays as opposed to a space spray, they cannot be considered as direct replacements for dichlorvos. Nevertheless, usage data from California suggests that if dichlorvos was unavailable, users would most likely use pyrethrin to achieve pest control. According to professionals and applicators, 1  4 ( average of 2.5) applications of pyrethrin might be needed to provide the same level of control as 1 treatment of dichlorvos. This is the result of the unique volatility of dichlorovos. Pyrethrin does not exhibit the same high vapor pressure and diffusion as dichlorvos and cannot as effectively treat a similar area. BEAD concludes that alternative insecticides are available but will require more applications and additional expense to achieve the same level of control as currently provided by dichlorvos.

VII. ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF DICHLORVOS FOR FOOD STORAGE AREA PESTS While there are a few registered chemicals for food storage areas, 2000 use data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation show that primarily dichlorvos and pyrethrin are used to prevent pests in the food storage areas. However, pyrethrin does not exhibit the same high vapor pressure and diffusion as dichlorvos and does not as effectively treat a similar sized area. Because of a lack of comparative efficacy data, we assume that higher application frequencies ( 2.5) of pyrethrin would provide the same level of control as one application of dichlorvos.

A. DATA USED 2000 California data are the only available usage data for dichlorvos and its alternative pyrethrin. Available data show about 463 pounds ai of dichlorvos are used on nearly 133 million cu ft of treated space, almost 67 percent of the total cu ft treated with both dichlorvos and pyrethrin ( 198 million cu ft). About 53 pounds ai of pyrethrin are used on almost 65 million cu ft of storage area, almost 33 percent of the total space area treated with both chemicals. According to expert opinion ( EPA 1993), 1 4 applications ( average 2.5) of pyrethrin would be needed to replace 1 application of dichlorvos.

B. COMPARATIVE COSTS Table 2 compares the major alternative with dichlorvos as a space treatment. Other alternative chemicals may be used as surface treatments or as fumigants; however, because dichlorvos is not usually used as a surface treatment or fumigant, price comparisons of these uses were not included in this analysis. 7 Table 2. Estimated Impacts to Food Storage Areas Of Not Having Dichlorvos Available for Use To Control Major Pests.

CHEMICAL FORMULATION APPLICATION RATE ( product/ 1,000 ft3) PRICE/ UNITa Cubicb Feet Treated ( 000) COST/ 1,000 ft3 dichlorvos 5% EC ( Vap 5) ½  1 fl ounce $ 24/ gallon 133,000 ½ fl oz. rate $ 0.10 1 fl oz. rate $ 0.19 pyrethrin 3% EC ( ULD BP 300) 1.0 fl ounce $ 105/ gallon 65,000 $ 0.82 a California Pesticide Use Summaries Report, University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, January 2003, and b Rolfes, Pat, President, Chem Tech, Ltd. Facsimiles on current prices for dichlorvos and pyrethrin, to Jihad Alsadek of USEPA/ OPP/ BEAD/ EAB, February 25 and 27, 2003.

C. UNITS TREATED California data shows 463 lb. a. i. of dichlorvos are applied in food storage areas. At a typical application rate of 1 gram a. i. per 1000 cu ft, the 463 lb. a. i. of dichlorvos applied in California would treat about 211 million cubic feet yearly. According to expert opinion ( EPA 1993), on average you need about 2.5 applications of pyrethrin to provide the same control as 1 application of dichlorvos. Assuming a 12 applications per year, roughly 17 million cu ft of Food Storage area are treated annually in California. Using the same application rate and number of applications for national food storage use of dichlorvos, assuming annual use of 50,000lbs, it is estimated that, on average, 1.5 billion cu ft of food storage area are treated annually with this insecticide.

D. IMPACTS OF USING PYRETHRIN INSTEAD OF DICHORVOS The impacts of using pyrethrin rather than dichlorvos is roughly $ 26 million per year. The cost per application ( 1,000 cu ft) with the alternative ( pyrethrin) would increase about 63 cents, for the 1 fl oz rate. If 30 applications of pyrethrin replaced 12 applications of dichlorvos per year, the extra cost per year would be about $ 17 per 1,000 cu ft treated ( 19 cents x 12 applications + 82 cents x 18 applications) or about $ 80,000 for an average warehouse. Expert opinion provided to the EPA in 1993 estimated the volume of the dry portion of an average grocery warehouse to be 4,730,000 cu ft. It is estimated 1.5 billion cu ft of food storage space receive an average of 12 applications of dichlorvo per year ( 18 billion cu ft/ 12 applications). The added cost of 1.5 billion cu ft treatments is 8 about $ 26 million.

VIII. REFERENCES 1. Benefit analysis of dichlorvos  Support Document. 1993. US EPA.

2. Insecticide Usage Data. 2000. California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

3. Control of Household Pests. 2006. 2006 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual  Chapter V: Insect Control http:// ipm. ncsu. edu/ agchem/ 5 22. pdf 4. Nebguide  Insect Pests of Stored Food in Kitchen and Pantry. 1996. University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension. G93 1130 A 5. Household Insects  Pantry Pests. Clemson Cooperative Extension.

6. Pantry Pests. 1996. Cooperative Extension Service  University of Missouri Columbia. Agricultural publication G7370.

7. Keeping Pests Out of the Home with Fewer Pesticides & Using Pesticides Safely. 2001. Cooperative Extension Service  University of Georgia.

8. USAID Commodities Reference Guide. Section IV: Controlling Damage to Food Commodities. 2206. http:// www. usaid. gov/ our_ work/ humanitarian_ assistance/ ffp/ crg/ sec4. htm 9. Pest Management in Food Handling and Other Specialized Facilities. http:// www. pested. msu. edu/ Resources/ bulletins/ pdf/ 2048/ E 2048PestManagement_ FoodHandling. pdf


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 46280]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18877]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170; FRL--9931-67-OW]
RIN 2040-ZA24

Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan and 2014 Annual
Effluent Guidelines Review Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan
and EPA's 2014 Annual Effluent Guidelines Review Report. Section 304(m)
of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to biennially publish a plan for
new and revised effluent guidelines, after public notice and comment.
The Plan identifies any new or existing industrial categories selected
for effluent guidelines and provides a schedule. EPA typically
publishes a preliminary plan upon which the public is invited to
comment, and then publishes a final plan thereafter. EPA published the
Preliminary 2014 Plan on September 16, 2014, and received public
comment on it.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William F. Swietlik, Engineering
and Analysis Division, Office of Water, 4303T, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC.,
20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    A. Supporting Documents--Key documents providing additional
information about EPA's 2014 annual review and the Final 2014 Plan
include the 2014 Effluent Guidelines Review Report and the Final 2014
Effluent Guidelines Program Plan.
    B. How can I get copies of these documents and other related
information?
    1. Docket. EPA has established official public dockets for these
actions under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0170. The official public
docket is the collection of materials that is available for public
viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    2. Electronic Access. You can access this Federal Register document
electronically through the United States government online source for
Federal regulations at http://www.regulations.gov.
    3. Internet access. Copies of the supporting documents are
available at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/304m/index.cfm

II. How Is This Document Organized?

    The outline of this notice follows.

A. Legal Authority
B. Summary of the Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

A. Legal Authority

    This notice is published under the authority of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
1251, et seq., and in particular sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g),
304(m), 306, 307(b) and 308 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(d), 1314(b),
1314(g), 1314(m), 1316, 1317(b), and 1318.

B. Summary of the Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

    EPA prepared the Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (the
Plan) pursuant to Clean Water Act section 304(m). The Plan provides a
summary of EPA's review of effluent guidelines and pretreatment
standards, consistent with CWA sections 301(d), 304(b), 304(g), 304(m),
and 307(b). It includes EPA's evaluation of indirect discharge
categories that do not have categorical pretreatment standards for the
purpose of identifying potential new categories for which pretreatment
standards under CWA section 307(b) might be warranted. From these
reviews, the Plan identifies any new or existing industrial categories
selected for effluent guidelines, and provides a schedule. In addition,
the Plan presents any new or existing categories of industry selected
for further review and analysis. The Final 2014 Plan and the 2014
Annual Review Report can be found at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/304m/index.cfm

    Dated: July 24, 2015.
Kenneth J. Kopocis,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FR Doc. 2015-18877 Filed 8-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 131 (Monday, July 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41139-41140]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14700]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0394]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0037

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0037,
Certificates of Compliance, Boiler/Pressure Vessel Repairs, Cargo Gear
Records, Shipping Papers, and National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 10 Certification; without change. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this
ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before September 9,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2022-0394] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management,

telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on these
documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an
application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a
Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains
information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's
likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity
of the Collection, and other important information describing the
Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2022-0394], and
must be received by September 9, 2022.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Certificates of Compliance, Boiler/Pressure Vessel Repairs,
Cargo Gear Records, Shipping Papers, and NFPA 10 Certification.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0037.
    Summary: 46 U.S.C. 3301, 3305, 3306, 3702, 3703, 3711, 3714, 4302,
and 4502 authorize the Coast Guard to establish marine safety
regulations to protect life, property, and the environment. These
regulations are prescribed in Title 46 Code of Federal Regulations.
    Need: 46 U.S.C. 3301, 3305, 3306, 3702, 3703, 3711, 3714, 4302, and
4502 authorize the Coast Guard to establish marine safety regulations
to protect life, property, and the environment. These regulations are
prescribed in Title 46 Code of Federal Regulations.
    Forms:
     CG-3585, Certificate of Compliance.
     CG-5437A, Port State Control Report of Inspection--Form A.
     CG-5437B, Port State Control Report of Inspection--Form B.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from
18,703 hours to 15,703 a year, due to a change in the methodology for
calculating the Shipping Papers burden.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: June 30, 2022.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2022-14700 Filed 7-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 96015-96017]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31424]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0879]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Procedures for the
Safe and Sanitary Processing and Importing of Fish and Fishery Products

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by January
30, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0354.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing and Importing of Fish
and Fishery Products--21 CFR part 123

OMB Control Number 0910-0354--Extension

    FDA regulations in part 123 (21 CFR part 123) mandate the
application of hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP)
principles to the processing of seafood. HACCP is a preventive system
of hazard control designed to help ensure the safety of foods. The
regulations were issued under FDA's statutory authority to regulate
food safety, including section 402(a)(1) and (4) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(1) and (4)).
    Certain provisions in part 123 require that processors and
importers of seafood collect and record information. The HACCP records
compiled and maintained by a seafood processor primarily consist of the
periodic observations recorded at selected monitoring points during
processing and packaging operations, as called for in a processor's
HACCP plan (e.g., the values for processing times, temperatures,
acidity, etc., as observed at critical control points). The primary
purpose of HACCP records is to permit a processor to verify that
products have been produced within carefully established processing
parameters (critical limits) that ensure that hazards have been
avoided.
    HACCP records are normally reviewed by appropriately trained
employees at the end of a production lot or at the end of a day or week
of production to verify that control limits have been maintained, or
that appropriate corrective actions were taken if the critical limits
were not maintained. Such verification activities are essential to
ensure that the HACCP system is working as planned. A review of these
records during the conduct of periodic plant inspections also permits
FDA to determine whether the products have been consistently processed
in conformance with appropriate HACCP food safety controls.
    Section 123.12 requires that importers of seafood products take
affirmative steps and maintain records that verify that the fish and
fishery products they offer for import into the United States were
processed in accordance with the HACCP and sanitation provisions set
forth in part 123. These records are also to be made available for
review by FDA as provided in Sec.  123.12(c).
    The time and costs of these recordkeeping activities will vary
considerably among processors and importers of fish and fishery
products, depending on the type and number of products involved, and on
the nature of the equipment or instruments required to monitor critical
control points. The burden estimate in table 1 includes only those
collections of information under the seafood HACCP regulations that are
not already required under other statutes and regulations. The estimate
also does not include collections of information that are a usual and
customary part of businesses' normal activities. For example, the
tagging and labeling of molluscan shellfish (21 CFR 1240.60) is a
customary and usual practice among seafood processors. Consequently,
the estimates in table 1

account only for information collection and recording requirements
attributable to part 123.
    Description of respondents: Respondents to this collection of
information include processors and importers of seafood.
    In the Federal Register of July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48816), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                   Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of
                                                  Number of      records per    Total annual
              21 CFR Section \2\                recordkeepers   recordkeeper       records        Average burden per recordkeeping \4\      Total hours
                                                                     \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
123.6(a), (b), and (c); Prepare hazard                     50               1              50  16.......................................             800
 analysis and HACCP plan.
123.6(c)(5); Undertake and prepare records of          15,000               4          60,000  .30......................................          18,000
 corrective actions.                                                                           (18 minutes).............................
123.8(a)(1) and (c); Reassess hazard analysis          15,000               1          15,000  4........................................          60,000
 and HACCP plan.
123.12(a)(2)(ii); Verify compliance of                  4,100              80         328,000  .20......................................          65,600
 imports and prepare records of verification                                                   (12 minutes).............................
 activities.
123.6(c)(7); Document monitoring of critical           15,000             280       4,200,000  .30......................................       1,260,000
 control points.                                                                               (18 minutes).............................
123.7(d); Undertake and prepare records of              6,000               4          24,000  .10......................................           2,400
 corrective actions due to a deviation from a                                                  (6 minutes)..............................
 critical limit.
123.8(d); Maintain records of the calibration          15,000              47         705,000  .10......................................          70,500
 of process-monitoring instruments and the                                                     (6 minutes)..............................
 performing of any periodic end-product and
 in-process testing.
123.11(c); Maintain sanitation control                 15,000             280       4,200,000  .10......................................         420,000
 records.                                                                                (6 minutes)..............................
123.12(c); Maintain records that verify that            4,100              80         328,000  .10......................................          32,800
 the fish and fishery products they offer for                                                  (6 minutes)..............................
 import into the United States were processed
 in accordance with the HACCP and sanitation
 provisions set forth in part 123.
123.12(a)(2); Prepare new written                          41               1              41  4........................................             164
 verification procedures to verify compliance
 of imports.
                                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  .........................................       1,930,264
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
\2\ These estimates include the information collection requirements in the following sections:
 Sec.   123.16--Smoked Fish--process controls (see Sec.   123.6(b));
 Sec.   123.28(a)--Source Controls--molluscan shellfish (see Sec.   123.6(b));
 Sec.   123.28(c) and (d)--Records--molluscan shellfish (see Sec.   123.6(c)(7)).
\3\ Based on an estimated 280 working days per year.
\4\ Estimated average time per 8-hour work day unless one-time response.

    We base this hour burden estimate on our experience with the
application of HACCP principles in food processing. Further, the
burdens have been estimated using typical small seafood processing
firms as a model because these firms represent a significant proportion
of the industry. The hour burden of HACCP recordkeeping activities will
vary considerably among processors and importers of fish and fishery
products, depending on the size of the facility and complexity of the
HACCP control scheme (i.e., the number of products and the number of
hazards controlled); the daily frequency that control points are
monitored and values recorded; and also on the extent that data
recording time and cost are minimized by the use of automated data
logging technology. The burden estimate does not include burden hours
for activities that are a usual and customary part of businesses'
normal activities. For example, the tagging and labeling of molluscan
shellfish (Sec.  1240.60) is a customary and usual practice among
seafood processors.
    Based on our records, we estimate that there are 15,000 processors
and 4,100 importers. We estimate that 50 processors will undertake the
initial preparation of a hazard analysis and HAACP plan (Sec.
123.6(a), (b), and (c)). We estimate the burden for the initial
preparation of a hazard analysis and HAACP plan to be 16 hours per
processor for a total burden of 800 hours.
    We estimate that all processors (15,000 processors) will undertake
and keep records of four corrective action plans (Sec.  123.6(c)(5))
for a total of 60,000 records. We estimate the burden for the
preparation of each record to be .30 hours for a total burden of 18,000
hours. We estimate that all processors (15,000 processors) will
annually reassess their hazard analysis and HACCP plan (Sec.
123.8(a)(1) and (c)). We estimate the burden for the reassessment of
the hazard analysis and HAACP plan to be 4 hours per processor for a
total burden of 60,000 hours.
    We estimate that all importers (4,100 importers) will take
affirmative steps to verify compliance of imports and prepare 80
records of their verification activities (Sec.  123.12(a)(2)(ii)) for a
total of 328,000 records. We estimate the burden for the preparation of
each record to be .20 hours for a total burden of 65,600 hours.
    We estimate that all processors (15,000 processors) will document
the monitoring of critical control points (Sec.  123.6(c)(7)) at 280
records per processor for a total of 4,200,000 records. We estimate the
burden for the preparation of each record to be .30 hours for a total
burden of 1,260,000 hours.
    We estimate that 40 percent of all processors (6,000 processors)
will maintain records of any corrective actions taken due to a
deviation from a critical limit (Sec.  123.7(d)) at 4 records per

processor for a total of 24,000 records. We estimate the burden for the
preparation of each record to be .10 hours for a total burden of 2,400
hours.
    We estimate that all processors (15,000 processors) will maintain
records of the calibration of process-monitoring instruments and the
performing of any periodic end-product and in-process testing (Sec.
123.8(d)) at 47 records per processor for a total of 705,000 records.
We estimate the burden for the preparation of each record to be .10
hours for a total burden of 70,500 hours.
    We estimate that all processors (15,000 processors) will maintain
sanitation control records (Sec.  123.11(c)) at 280 records per
processor for a total of 4,200,000 records. We estimate the burden for
the preparation of each record to be .10 hours for a total burden of
420,000 hours.
    We estimate that all importers (4,100 importers) will maintain
records that verify that the fish and fishery products they offer for
import into the United States were processed in accordance with the
HACCP and sanitation provisions set forth in part 123 (Sec.
123.12(c)). We estimate that 80 records will be prepared per importer
for a total of 328,000 records. We estimate the burden for the
preparation of each record to be .10 hours for a total burden of 32,800
hours.
    We estimate that 1 percent of all importers (41 importers) will
require new written verification procedures to verify compliance of
imports (Sec.  123.12(a)(2)). We estimate the burden for preparing the
new procedures to be 4 hours per importer for a total burden of 164
hours.

    Dated: December 21, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-31424 Filed 12-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P