[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39890-39892]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17245]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0178; FRL-9981-40--Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; 1997 8-Hour Ozone Attainment
Demonstration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
ozone attainment demonstration portion of a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut to meet the Clean
Air Act (CAA) requirements for attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The EPA is approving
Connecticut's demonstration of attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT
moderate 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereafter, the NY-NJ-CT
area or the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area). In addition, the EPA is
approving Connecticut's reasonably available control measures (RACM)
analysis. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 12, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0178. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality
Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Wortman, Air Permits, Toxics, and
Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region
1 Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100 (Mail Code OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912, phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number: (617)
918-0624, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Action
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On May 25, 2018 (83 FR 24259), the EPA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Connecticut. In the May 25,
2018 proposed rulemaking action, the EPA

proposed to approve the portion of a Connecticut SIP revision submitted
on August 8, 2017 which demonstrates attainment of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. The EPA also proposed to approve the associated RACM analysis
for the same area. Connecticut previously submitted an initial
attainment demonstration for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the Connecticut
portion of the NY-NJ-CT area on February 1, 2008.
    This action addresses Connecticut's demonstrations of attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and associated RACM analysis for the
Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area, submitted by Connecticut on
February 1, 2008 and August 8, 2017. The EPA is taking separate action
on the 2011 base year emission inventories, RFP plans, motor vehicle
emission budgets, and contingency measures submitted as part of the
August 8, 2017 SIP revisions in a forthcoming Federal Register
document.

II. Summary of Action

    As discussed in the Federal Register at 83 FR 24259, May 25, 2018,
proposed rulemaking, the EPA reviewed the photochemical grid modeling
used by Connecticut in its August 8, 2017 SIP submittal to demonstrate
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS and determined the modeling meets
the EPA's guidelines and is acceptable to the EPA. Air quality
monitoring data for 2014-2016 also demonstrates attainment of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard throughout the NY-NJ-CT area. The purpose of the
attainment demonstration is to demonstrate how, through enforceable and
approvable emission reductions, an area will meet the standard by the
attainment date. The purpose of the RACM analysis is to show that the
State has considered all reasonable available control measures to
achieve attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. All necessary
ozone control measures have already been adopted, submitted, approved
and implemented. Also discussed in further detail in the Federal
Register at 83 FR 24259, May 25, 2018, proposed rulemaking and based on
(1) the State following the EPA's modeling guidance, (2) the modeled
attainment of 1997 standard, (3) the air quality monitoring data for
2014-2016, and (4) the implemented SIP-approved control measures, the
EPA is approving the attainment demonstration and RACM analysis for the
1997 ozone NAAQS for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area. The
EPA is not taking action on the attainment demonstration and RACM
analysis for the 2008 ozone NAAQS at this time.
    Other specific requirements of an attainment demonstration and the
rationale for the EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRM and
will not be restated here. The EPA received two comments during the
comment period. Although one comment was partially supportive of the
EPA's proposed action, the comments otherwise discuss subjects outside
the scope of an attainment demonstration action, do not explain (or
provide a legal basis for) how the proposed action should differ in any
way, and make no specific mention of the proposed action. As such, they
are not germane and do not require further response to finalize the
action as proposed.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the attainment demonstration and RACM analysis
for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. This rulemaking addresses the EPA's obligations to act on
Connecticut's February 1, 2008 SIP revision for the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
as well as the attainment demonstration and RACM analysis portion of
the August 8, 2017 SIP submittal for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for the
Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 12, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of
this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the
time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This
action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: August 6, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart H--Connecticut

0
2. Section 52.377 is amended by adding paragraph(s) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.377  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (s) Approval--An attainment demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard to satisfy requirements of section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Clean
Air Act, and a Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) analysis to
satisfy requirements of section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act for the
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT) ozone nonattainment
area, submitted by the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection. This rulemaking addresses the EPA's
obligations to act on Connecticut's February 1, 2008 SIP revision for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS, as well as the attainment demonstration and RACM
analysis portion of the August 8, 2017 SIP submittal for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS for the Connecticut portion of the NY-NJ-CT area.

[FR Doc. 2018-17245 Filed 8-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 228 (Friday, November 27, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74063-74064]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29784]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3675; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-19]

Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Walla Walla,
WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class D airspace, Class E
surface area airspace, Class E surface area airspace designated as an
extension, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Walla Walla Regional Airport, Walla Walla, WA. After a
review of the airspace, the FAA found it necessary to amend the
airspace area for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) operations for arriving and departing aircraft at the airport.
This action would also update the geographic coordinates of Walla Walla
Regional Airport in the respective Class D and E airspace areas above.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2015-
3675; Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-19, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-
647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy and ATC Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 29591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection at
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Haga, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class D and Class E airspace at Walla Walla Regional
Airport, Walla Walla, WA.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2015-3675;
Airspace Docket No. 15-ANM-19.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas,

air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class D airspace, Class E
surface area airspace, Class E surface area airspace designated as an
extension, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Walla Walla Regional Airport, Walla Walla, WA. The Class
E airspace area designated as an extension would extend from the 4.3-
mile radius of Walla Walla Regional Airport to 7.5 miles southwest and
13.4 miles northeast of the airport. Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface would be modified to an area 5.7 miles
to the west, 16.5 miles to the southwest, 22.5 miles northeast and
within a 13.4-mile radius of a point in space location east of Walla
Walla Regional Airport. This action would also update the geographic
coordinates of the airport for the Class D and E airspace areas listed
above.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order
7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000: Class D Airspace.
* * * * *

ANM WA D Walla Walla, WA [Modified]

Walla Walla Regional Airport, WA
    (Lat. 46[deg]05'43'' N., long. 118[deg]17'09'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,700 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Walla Walla Regional
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.
Paragraph 6002: Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.
* * * * *

ANM WA E2 Walla Walla, WA [Modified]

Walla Walla Regional Airport, WA
    (Lat. 46[deg]05'43'' N., long. 118[deg]17'09'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-
mile radius of Walla Walla Regional Airport.
Paragraph 6004: Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.
* * * * *

ANM WA E4 Walla Walla, WA [Modified]

Walla Walla Regional Airport, WA
    (Lat. 46[deg]05'43'' N., long. 118[deg]17'09'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.7 miles
each side of the Walla Walla 215[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 4.3-mile radius of Walla Walla Regional Airport
to 7.5 miles southwest of the airport, and within 4.1 miles each
side of the Walla Walla 35[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 4.3-mile radius of Walla Walla Regional Airport to 13.4
miles northeast of the airport.
Paragraph 6005: Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.
* * * * *

ANM WA E5 Walla Walla, WA [Modified]

Walla Walla Regional Airport, WA
    (Lat. 46[deg]05'43'' N., long. 118[deg]17'09'' W.)
Walla Walla Regional Airport, point in space coordinates
    (Lat. 46[deg]03'27'' N., long.118[deg]12'20'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
bounded by a line beginning at lat. 45[deg]52'29'' N., long.
118[deg]23'027'' W.; to lat. 45[deg]49'51'' N., long.
118[deg]26'02'' W.; to lat. 45[deg]57'17'' N., long. 118[deg]40'49''
W.; to lat. 46[deg]10'22'' N., long. 118[deg]27'48'' W.; to lat.
46[deg]08'46'' N., long. 118[deg]24'32'' W.; to lat. 46[deg]14'38''
N., long. 118[deg]18'44'' W.; to lat. 46[deg]16'07'' N., long.
118[deg]21'47'' W.; to lat. 46[deg]29'20'' N., long. 118[deg]08'35''
W.; to lat. 46[deg]22'02'' N., long. 117[deg]53'24'' W.; to lat.
46[deg]14'25'' N., long. 118[deg]01'11'' W.; and that airspace
within a 13.4-mile radius of point in space coordinates at lat.
46[deg]03'27'' N., long.118[deg]12'20'' W., from the 052[deg]
bearing from the Walla Walla Regional Airport clockwise to the
198[deg] bearing.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 10, 2015.
Christopher Ramirez,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2015-29784 Filed 11-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42963-42965]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17211]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0747]

Assessment of the Risk of Human Salmonellosis Associated With the
Consumption of Tree Nuts; Request for Comments, Scientific Data and
Information

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments and for scientific data and
information.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is requesting
comments and scientific data and information that may help us in
performing a quantitative assessment of the risk of human salmonellosis
(an infection with bacteria called Salmonella) associated with the
consumption of tree nuts. The purpose of the risk assessment will be to
quantify the public health risk associated with the consumption of
potentially Salmonella contaminated tree nuts and to evaluate the
impact of risk-based preventive controls on the risk of human
salmonellosis arising from consumption of tree nuts.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments and scientific data
and information by October 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments and scientific data and
information to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments and
scientific data and information to the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherri Dennis, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-06), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The consumption of whole raw almonds has been associated with
outbreaks of human salmonellosis (an infection with bacteria called
Salmonella), during the years 2000-2001 (Ref. 1) and the years 2003-
2004 (Ref. 2). Salmonellosis has also been associated with other tree
nuts such as desiccated coconut (i.e., coconut meat which has been
shredded or flaked and then dried to remove as much moisture as
possible) (Ref. 3) and pine nuts (Ref. 4). In addition, Salmonella has
been found in a variety of tree nuts destined for human consumption
including almonds (Ref. 5), cashew nuts and Brazil nuts (Ref. 6),
macadamia nuts (Ref. 7), walnuts (Ref. 8) and pistachio nuts (Ref. 9).
In the United States, tree nuts have repeatedly been recalled due to
Salmonella contamination; between 2009 and 2012 pine nuts, pistachios,
shelled hazelnuts, walnuts, cashew nuts

and macademia nuts have been recalled because of potential Salmonella
contamination (Refs. 10 and 11). These outbreaks, published reports of
Salmonella in tree nuts destined for human consumption, and recalls
emphasize the need to assess the risk of salmonellosis associated with
tree nuts intended for human consumption, and to evaluate the
appropriate risk-based preventive controls needed to reduce the risk of
human salmonellosis.
    The exact sequence of events leading to human salmonellosis
outbreaks from consumption of tree nuts is not fully understood. For
example, during the 2000-2001 outbreak, investigations supported
previous findings (Ref. 12) that contamination and cross-contamination
risks exist within tree nut facilities and at preceding points of
production (Ref. 1). Notably, the specific 2000-2001 Salmonella
outbreak strain was shown to persist in one of the affected orchards
for a period of at least 5 years, emphasizing the potential risk of
cross-contamination even years after Salmonella is introduced into an
orchard (Ref. 13).
    Risk assessments can be used to evaluate potential risk reduction
strategies; determine the adequacy and expected efficacy of preventive
controls; and guide risk management policies, outreach efforts, data
collection initiatives, and research priorities. The purpose of this
risk assessment will be to quantify the public health risk associated
with the consumption of tree nuts potentially contaminated with
Salmonella, and to evaluate the impact of risk-based preventive
controls on the risk of human salmonellosis arising from consumption of
tree nuts. The risk assessment model will be used to evaluate practices
used in the United States, as well as policies related to risk-based
preventive controls. Specifically, the risk assessment will assist us
in determining the levels of contamination reduction appropriate for
reducing the risk of human salmonellosis from tree nuts.

II. Request for Comments and Scientific Data and Information

    We are requesting comments and the submission of scientific data
and information relevant to this risk assessment. We specifically
request scientific data and information concerning, but not limited to,
the following factors that may affect the risk of human salmonellosis
associated with the consumption of tree nuts:
    1. Salmonella contamination in different tree nuts sampled at
harvest, distribution (including transportation), manufacturing/
processing plant (including at times before, during, and after
application of treatments designed to reduce bacterial contamination),
retail, or anywhere else in the supply chain, including:
     The frequency of detecting the presence of Salmonella in
different types of domestically produced or imported tree nuts, sampled
at different stages of the farm-to-fork continuum as described
previously. If available, for each data point, we also invite
information regarding the following: (1) How the nuts were handled
prior to analysis (e.g., pre-processing storage conditions, processing
treatments and conditions, post-processing storage, etc.); (2) the size
of the analytical unit; (3) number of positives; (4) total number
tested and the time period in which the testing was conducted; (5) test
method; and (6) sampling protocol (e.g., simple random, stratified
random, targeted);
     The number of Salmonella present per amount (i.e., unit
volume or weight) of contaminated domestically produced or imported
tree nuts, sampled at different stages of the farm-to-fork continuum as
described previously. If available, for each data point, we also invite
information regarding the following: (1) How the nuts were handled
prior to analysis (e.g., pre-processing storage conditions, processing
treatments and conditions, post-processing storage, etc.); (2) the
analytical method used; and (3) sampling protocol (e.g., simple random,
stratified random, targeted). We ask that the testing data be provided
in unaggregated form and that Most-Probable Number (MPN) patterns as
well as raw data (e.g., number of positive and negative tubes per
dilution step in the MPN analysis) be provided if available;
     The frequency of detecting the presence of Salmonella in
tree nut lots associated with outbreaks of human salmonellosis. If
available, for each data point, we also invite information regarding
the following: (1) How the nuts were handled prior to analysis (e.g.,
pre-processing storage conditions, processing treatments and
conditions, post-processing storage, etc.); (2) size of the analytical
unit; (3) number of positives; (4) total number tested; (5) analytical
test method; and (6) sampling protocol (e.g., simple random, stratified
random, targeted); and
     The number of Salmonella present per amount (i.e., unit
volume or weight) of contaminated tree nuts associated with outbreaks
of human salmonellosis. If available, for each data point, we also
invite information regarding the following: (1) How the nuts were
handled prior to analysis (e.g., pre- processing storage conditions,
processing treatments and conditions, post-processing storage, etc.);
(2) analytical method used; and (3) sampling protocols (e.g., simple
random, stratified random, targeted). We ask that the testing data be
provided in unaggregated form and that MPN patterns as well as raw data
(e.g., number of positive and negative tubes per dilution step in the
MPN analysis) be provided if available; in addition, we would ask that
data regarding the variability in the number of Salmonella cells
present in different samples from the same lot of contaminated nuts
associated with an outbreak also be provided if available.
    2. Salmonella survival, growth or inactivation dynamics in
different tree nuts during transportation and storage, including:
     Data or models on survival, growth or inactivation of
Salmonella in specific tree nuts, including the potential effects of
nut composition, water activity, and storage temperature;
     Data or models on survival, growth, or inactivation of
Salmonella at different stages along the tree nut farm-to-fork
continuum, potentially as a function of relative humidity during
storage, geographic region, or season; and
     Data or models on survival, growth or inactivation of
Salmonella in different foods made with Salmonella-contaminated tree
nuts as ingredients.
    3. Current food consumption practices in the United States,
including:
     The frequency with which different tree nuts or foods
containing tree nuts are consumed by population subgroups (e.g.,
general adult population, immunocompromised persons, and the elderly);
     The frequency with which different tree nuts are consumed
raw (i.e., without undergoing any treatment designed to reduce
bacterial contamination on tree nuts between the time of harvest and
the time of consumption) by different population subgroups;
     The frequency with which tree nuts that have undergone
treatments designed to reduce bacterial contamination are consumed by
different population subgroups; and
     Serving sizes for different tree nuts, including serving
sizes for consumption of raw tree nuts and/or tree nuts that have
undergone treatments designed to reduce bacterial contamination between
the time of harvest and the time of consumption.
    4. Storage, handling and processing conditions that may affect
Salmonella survival, growth, or inactivation along

the farm-to-fork continuum and the impact of these conditions on
Salmonella concentrations on tree nuts, including:
     Typical storage conditions (e.g., time, temperature,
relative humidity) for different tree nuts, from the time of harvest
until the application of treatments designed to reduce bacterial
contamination, and whether those storage conditions change Salmonella
contamination levels;
     The types of treatments designed to reduce bacterial
contamination that are typically applied to different tree nuts before
retail, the frequency with which these treatments are applied to
different types of tree nuts, the exact processing conditions (e.g.,
time, temperature, relative humidity), and the efficacy of these
treatments in reducing Salmonella contamination on different tree nuts;
     Typical storage conditions (e.g., time, temperature,
relative humidity) for different tree nuts, from the time treatments
designed to reduce bacterial contamination are applied to the time the
tree nuts are consumed, including typical storage conditions at retail
and in the consumer home.
     The types of handling practices that are typically applied
to different tree nuts by the consumer before consumption that may
change Salmonella contamination levels, and the typical conditions
(e.g., time, temperature) that are applied during these practices.
    5. Other comments, including the types of tree nuts that should be
evaluated in this risk assessment and information about which types of
tree nuts may enter the U.S. market without the application of
treatments designed to reduce bacterial contamination.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments and
scientific data and information to http://www.regulations.gov or
written comments and scientific data and information to the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one
set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen
in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. References

    The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and may be seen by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. We
have verified the Web site addresses in the References section, but we
are not responsible for any subsequent changes to the Web sites after
this document publishes in the Federal Register.

    1. Isaacs, S., J. Aramini, B. Ciebin, J.A. Farrar, R. Ahmed, D.
Middleton, A.U. Chandran, L.J. Harris, M. Whoes, E. Chan, A.S.
Pichette, K. Campbell, A. Gupta, L.Y. Lior, M. Pearce, C. Clark, F.
Rodgers, F. Jamieson, I. Brophy, A. Ellis, ``Salmonella Enteritidis
PT30 Outbreak Investigation Working Group. An international outbreak
of salmonellosis associated with raw almonds contaminated with a
rare phage type of Salmonella enteritidis.'' Journal of Food
Protection, 68(1): pp. 191-198, 2005.
    2. Outbreak of Salmonella serotype Enteritidis infections
associated with raw almonds--United States and Canada, 2003-2004.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53(22): pp. 484-487, 2004.
    3. Ward, L., G. Duckworth, S. O'Brien, ``Salmonella java phage
type Dundee--rise in cases in England: update.'' Eurosurveillance,
3(12): p. 1435, 1999.
    4. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Multistate
Outbreak of Human Salmonella Enteritidis Infections Linked to
Turkish Pine Nuts. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/pinenuts-enteriditis/111711/index.html. Last updated: 11/2011
[accessed 08/2012].
    5. Danyluk, M.D., T.M. Jones, S.J. Abd, F. Schlitt-Dittrich, M.
Jacobs, L.J. Harris. ``Prevalence and amounts of Salmonella found on
raw California almonds.'' Journal of Food Protection, 70(4): pp.
820-827, 2007.
    6. Freire, F.D.O., L. Offord. ``Bacterial and yeast counts in
Brazilian commodities and spices.'' Brazilian Journal of
Microbiology, 33(2): pp. 145-148, 2002.
    7. StClair, V.J., M.M. Klenk. ``Performance of 3 Methods for the
Rapid Identification of Salmonella in Naturally Contaminated Foods
and Feeds.'' Journal of Food Protection, 53(11): pp. 961-964, 1990.
    8. Riyaz-Ul-Hassan, S., V. Verma, A. Malik, G.N. Qazi.
``Microbiological quality of walnut kernels and apple juice
concentrate.'' World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology,
19(8): pp. 845-850, 2003.
    9. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Salmonella
in Pistachio Nuts, 2009. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/pistachios/update.html. Last updated: 2009 (Accessed 08/2012).
    10. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Recalls, Market
Withdrawals, & Safety Alerts. Available at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/default.htm. (Accessed 04/2013).
    11. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). Enforcement Reports.
Available at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/EnforcementReports/default.htm.
    12. National Research Council. Committee on Food Protection.
1975. Nuts, macaroni, and noodle products and dry blended foods in
prevention of microbial and parasitic hazards associated with
processed foods. A guide for the food processor, pp. 68-76. In:
National Academies of Sciences (ed.). Prevention of Microbial and
Parasitic Hazards associated with Processed Foods--A Guide for the
Food Processor. National Academy of Science Publishing Office,
Washington, DC.
    13. Uesugi, A.R., M.D. Danyluk, R.E. Mandrell, L.J. Harris.
``Isolation of Salmonella Enteritidis phage type 30 from a single
almond orchard over a 5-year period.'' Journal of Food Protection,
70(8): pp. 1784-1789, 2007.

    Dated: July 9, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-17211 Filed 7-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 242 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78775-78776]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31752]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2012-0034]

Hexavalent Chromium Standards; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements contained in the Hexavalent
Chromium Standards for General Industry (29 CFR 1910.1026), Shipyard
Employment (29 CFR 1915.1026), and Construction (29 CFR 1926.1126).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
February 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2012-0034, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-
2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries
(hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted
during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business
hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2012-0034) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Todd Owen, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collection of
information requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The collections of information in the Hexavalent Chromium (Cr(VI))
Standards for General Industry (29 CFR 1910.1026), Shipyard Employment
(29 CFR 1915.1026), and Construction (29 CFR 1926.1126) (the
``Standards'') protect workers from the adverse health effects that may
result from occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. The major
collections of information in these Standards include conducting worker
exposure monitoring, notifying workers of their chromium exposures,
implementing medical surveillance of workers, providing examining
physicians with specific information, implementing a respiratory
protection program, notifying laundry personnel of chromium hazards and
maintaining workers' exposure monitoring and medical surveillance
records for specific periods.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed collection of information
requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's
functions, including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the collection of information requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    The Agency is requesting an adjustment decrease of 47,615 burden
hours (from 541,582 to 493,967 burden hours). The decrease in burden
hours is due to an estimated decrease of exposed workers and a
reduction in the number of plants in specific industry sectors. There
is also an estimated increase in operation and maintenance costs of
$123,015, from $46,589,912 to $46,712,927. The increase in operation
and maintenance costs is due to the increase in exposure monitoring air
sampling costs, medical exam and testing costs, and costs of materials
for qualitative fit testing.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Title: Hexavalent Chromium (Cr(VI)) Standards for General Industry
(29 CFR 1910.1026), Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915.1026), and
Construction (29 CFR 1926.1126).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0252.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 75,684.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion; Quarterly; Semi-annually;
Annually.
    Total Responses: 994,834.
    Average Time per Response: Time per response ranges from 5 minutes
(.08 hour) to provide a copy of a written medical opinion to a worker
to 4 hours for a worker to receive a comprehensive medical examination.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 493,967.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $46,712,927.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number (Docket No. OSHA-2012-0034) for this ICR.
You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as their social security number
and date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this Web
site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 14, 2015.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2015-31752 Filed 12-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4430]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01971]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

Addition of a Subsurface Intrusion Component to the Hazard
Ranking System

CFR Correction

    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 300 to 399,
revised as of July 1, 2017, on page 110, in the Table of Contents to
Appendix A to Part 300, revise the following headings:

Appendix A to Part 300--The Hazard Ranking System

Table of Contents

* * * * *
7.1.1 Observed release/observed contamination/observed exposure.
7.1.2 Potential to release/potential for exposure.
* * * * *
7.2.3 Persistence/degradation.
* * * * *
7.3.3 Weighting of targets within an area of subsurface
contamination.
* * * * *

List of Figures, Figure number

* * * * *
5-1 Overview of the soil exposure and subsurface intrusion pathway.
* * * * *

List of Tables, Table number

* * * * *
5-1 Soil exposure component scoresheet.
5-2 Hazardous waste quantity evaluation equations for soil exposure
component.
* * * * *
5-11 Subsurface intrusion component scoresheet.
5-12 Structure containment.
5-13 Depth to contamination.
5-14 Effective porosity/permeability of geological materials.
5-15 Vertical migration factor values.
5-16 Values for vapor pressure and Henry's constant.
5-17 Vapor migration potential factor values for a hazardous
substance.
5-18 Degradation factor value table.
5-19 Hazardous waste quantity evaluation equations for subsurface
intrusion component.
5-20 Health-based benchmarks for hazardous substances in the
subsurface intrusion component.
5-21 Weighting factor values for populations within an area of
subsurface contamination.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-01971 Filed 1-30-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1301-00-D