[Federal Register: March 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 55)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14406-14409]
[DOCID:fr22mr06-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0053; FRL-7766-8]

Imidacloprid; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues
of imidacloprid in or on oats and rye. Bayer CropScience requested this
tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as
amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 22, 2006. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 22, 2006.

ADDRESSES: To submit a written objection or hearing request follow the
detailed instructions as provided in Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0053. All documents in the
docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
EDOCKET or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Kenny, Registration Division
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., agricultural workers;
greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and
farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 32532), e.g., agricultural
workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and
floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
Related Information?

    In addition to using EDOCKET (http://www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may

access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA
Internet under the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
 EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system

was replaced on November 25, 2005, by an enchanced Federal-wide
electronic docket management and comment system located at http://www.regulations.gov/
 Follow the on-line instructions. A frequently

updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR
Beta Site Two at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. To access the OPPTS

Harmonized Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the
guidelines at http://www.epa.gpo/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm/.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of January 27, 2006 (71 FR 4580) (FRL-7759-
1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
5F7020) by Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.472 be amended
by establishing a tolerance for combined residues of the insecticide
imidacloprid, 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine, and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl
moiety, all expressed as 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine, in or on oats, grain at 0.5 parts per million (ppm);
oats, forage at 2.0 ppm; oats, hay at 6.0 ppm; oats, straw at 3.0 ppm;
rye, grain at 0.5 ppm; rye, forage at 2.0 ppm; rye, hay at 6.0 ppm; and
rye, straw at 3.0 ppm. In order to correct a typographical error in the
original petition, the proposed tolerance levels for oats, grain and
rye, grain were subsequently revised to 0.05 ppm. That notice included
a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the
registrant. There were no comments received in response to the notice
of filing.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * *
*''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the
regulatory requirements of section 408 of the FFDCA and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm
.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section
408(b)(2) of FFDCA, for a tolerance for combined residues of
imidacloprid on oats, grain at 0.05 ppm; oats, forage at 2.0 ppm; oats,
hay at 6.0 ppm; oats, straw at 3.0 ppm; rye, grain at 0.05 ppm; rye,
forage at 2.0 ppm; rye, hay at 6.0 ppm; and rye, straw at 3.0 ppm.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with establishing
the tolerance follows.
    The proposed use for imidacloprid on oats and rye involves the
registration of imidacloprid as a seed treatment. Imidacloprid is
already registered as a seed treatment on barley, corn, sorghum, and
wheat. Permanent tolerances for imidacloprid are established for
barley, corn, sorghum, and wheat, and seed treatment residue data are
available for these crops. These crops are considered to be
representative commodities for the cereal grain crop group, which also
includes oats and rye. After consideration of the existing data used to
support the tolerances discussed above, and provided that the proposed
oat and rye seed treatment application rates are similar to the
application rates used in the barley, corn, sorghum, and wheat residue
studies, EPA concluded that the translation of this data to support
tolerances on oats and rye is acceptable and that the highest residues
be used for estimation of residues in/on oat and rye.
    On June 13, 2003 the Agency published a Final Rule (68 FR 35303,
FRL-7310-8) establishing tolerances for residues of imidacloprid in or
on acerola; artichoke, globe; avocado; banana (import); canistel; corn,
pop, grain; corn, pop, stover; cranberry; currant; elderberry; feijoa;
fruit, stone, group 12; gooseberry; huckleberry; guava; jaboticaba;
juneberry; lingonberry; longan; lychee; mango; mustard, seed; okra;
papaya; passionfruit; persimmon; pulasan; rambutan; salal; sapodilla;
sapote, black; sapote, mamey; Spanish lime; star apple; starfruit;
strawberry; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2; vegetable,
legume, group 6, except soybean; vegetable, root and tuber, group 1,
except sugar beet; watercress; wax jambu. When the Agency conducted the
risk assessments in support of this tolerance action, it assumed that
imidacloprid residues would be present on oats and rye (including
grain, forage, hay, and straw) as well as on all foods covered by the
proposed and established tolerances. Residues on oats and rye were
included because there were previously established indirect or
inadvertent tolerances for imidacloprid in or on cereal grains,
including oats and rye. In assuming the dietary risk from the
consumption of treated oats and rye, the most conservative assumptions
were used (i.e., 100% of oats and rye crops were treated and residues
on the treated commodities were at tolerance levels). Therefore,
establishing permanent tolerances in or on oat and rye commodities will
not change the most recent estimated aggregate risks resulting from use
of imidacloprid, as discussed in the June 13, 2003 Federal Register.
Refer to the June 13, 2003 Federal Register document for a detailed
discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and determination of
safety. EPA relies upon those risk assessments and the findings made in
the Federal Register document in support of this action.
    Based on the risk assessments discussed in the final rule published
in the Federal Register of June 13, 2003, EPA concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to
imidacloprid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (Bayer Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry (GC/MS) Method 00200 in plant commodities, and Bayer GC/MS
Method 00191 in livestock commodities) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are no established Codex maximum residue limits for
imidacloprid in or on oats or rye.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerance is established for combined residues of
imidacloprid, 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine, and its metabolites containing the 6-chloropyridinyl
moiety, all expressed as 1-[(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl]-N-nitro-2-
imidazolidinimine, in or on oats, grain at 0.05 ppm; oats, forage at
2.0 ppm; oats, hay at 6.0 ppm; oats, straw at 3.0 ppm; rye, grain at
0.05 ppm; rye, forage at 2.0 ppm; rye, hay at 6.0 ppm; and rye, straw
at 3.0 ppm.

VI. Objections and Hearing Requests

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may
file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request
a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require
some modification to reflect the amendments made to FFDCA by FQPA, EPA
will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments,
until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g)
of FFDCA provides essentially the same process for persons to
``object'' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d) of FFDCA, as was
provided in the old sections 408 and 409 of FFDCA. However, the period
for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

    You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit
and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0053 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before May 22,
2006.
    1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific
provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for
the objections (40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the
objections must include a statement of the factual issue(s) on which a
hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a
summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27).
Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing
request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that
information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the
information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public record. Information not marked

confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.
    Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. You may also deliver your request to the
Office of the Hearing Clerk in Suite 350, 1099 14th St., NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit VI.A., you
should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion
in the official record that is described in ADDRESSES. Mail your
copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0053, to: Public
Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Technology and
Resource Management Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the
location of the PIRIB described in ADDRESSES. Please use an ASCII file
format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will
also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/8.0 or ASCII file format.
Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an
electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing?

    A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator
determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a
genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable
possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would,
if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the
requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the
contrary; and resolution of the factual issue(s) in the manner sought
by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40
CFR 178.32).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of
significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive
Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does
not involve any technical standards that would require Agency
consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since
tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a
petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has
determined that this rule does not have any ``tribal implications'' as
described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 6,
2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this rule.

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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 this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 13, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.472 is amended by alphabetically adding commodities to
the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.472  Imidacloprid; tolerances for residues.

    (a)* * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Oats, forage...............................................         a2.0
Oats, grain................................................         0.05
Oats, hay..................................................          6.0
Oats, straw................................................          3.0
                                * * * * *
Rye, forage................................................          2.0
Rye, grain.................................................         0.05
Rye, hay...................................................          6.0
Rye, straw.................................................          3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-2712 Filed 3-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20544-20546]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09645]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0334]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Miles 179 to 184, St.
Louis, MO

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Upper Mississippi River from mile marker (MM)
179 to MM 184 in St. Louis, MO. This action is necessary to provide for
the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine environment on these
navigable waters as a result of increasing flow and high water
conditions on the river. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from May 10, 2019
through June 2, 2019. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be used from May 2, 2019, through May 10, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0334 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Christian Barger, Sector Upper
Mississippi River Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River
DHS Department of Homeland Security

FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C. United States Code
UMR Upper Mississippi River
WAP Waterways Action Plan

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. It is
impracticable because we must establish this safety zone immediately
and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and
then consider those comments before issuing this rule. The NPRM process
would delay the establishment of the safety zone and compromise public
safety.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be
contrary to public interest because immediate action is necessary to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with floodwaters and
high flow of the river.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that
potential hazards associated with flood waters exist in the St. Louis
Harbor of the Upper Mississippi River. Increased flow rates and river
height makes navigating this area extremely difficult due to a high
number of highway and railroad bridges in the area. This rule is
necessary to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the marine
environment on these navigable waters.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from May 2, 2019
through June 2, 2019, or until cancelled by the COTP, whichever occurs
first. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Upper
Mississippi River from MM 179 to MM 184, unless reduced in scope by the
COTP as flood conditions warrant.
    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under
the operational control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River. To seek
permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated representative
via VHF-FM channel 16, or through USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River
at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone
must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP or
designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will
inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well
as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement, as well as
reductions in size of the safety zone as flood conditions improve,
through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners
(BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as
appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the emergency
nature of the action and the increasing flow rates and river height.
When the Upper Mississippi River gauge in St. Louis, MO reaches 38 feet
above zero, increased flow rates and vertical clearances associated
with bridges in the St. Louis area between MM 179 and MM 184 result in
difficulty with making safe approaches to the bridges and increase the
potential for bridge strikes. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a
BNM via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule allows
vessels to seek permission to enter the zone on a case-by-case basis.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one
of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have
a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
temporary safety zone prohibiting entry on a five mile stretch of the
Upper Mississippi River that is experiencing significant flooding. It
is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(d) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0334 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0334  Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, Miles 179-
184, St. Louis, MO.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Upper Mississippi River from mile marker (MM) 179 to MM
184. This section will be enforced on all navigable waters of the Upper
Mississippi River from MM 179 to MM 184, unless reduced in scope by the
Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) as flood
conditions warrant.
    (b) Effective period. This rule is effective without actual notice
from May 10, 2019 until June 2, 2019, or until cancelled by the COTP,
whichever occurs first. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be provided from May 2, 2019, until May 10, 2019.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general safety zone
regulations in Sec.  165.23, entry of persons or vessels into this
safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited
unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. A
designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under the operational
control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated
representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through USCG Sector Upper
Mississippi River at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons and vessels permitted to
enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions
issued by the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the effective period for the
safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of
enforcement, as well as reductions in size of the safety zone as flood
conditions improve, through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast
Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins
(MSIBs) as appropriate.

    Dated: May 2, 2019.
S.A. Stoermer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2019-09645 Filed 5-9-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 27 (Thursday, February 11, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9021-9023]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02543]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0593; FRL-10017-79-Region 1]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans (Negative Declarations)
for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Maine and Rhode Island

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking a direct
final action to approve negative declarations submitted in lieu of
State plans to satisfy the requirements of the Emission Guidelines and
Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills for the State of
Maine and the State of Rhode Island. The negative declarations certify
that there are no existing facilities in the States that must comply
with this rule.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective April 12, 2021 without
further notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by March 15,
2021. If the EPA receives adverse comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2020-0593 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comments received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on

making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket materials are
available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation
Division, 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 and facility closures
due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Kilpatrick, Air Permits,
Toxics, & Indoor Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Mail
Code: 05-2, Boston, MA 02109-0287. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax: 617-
918-0652 Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Regulations
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes standards of
performance for existing sources, specifically pertaining to the
remaining useful life of a source. Air pollutants included under this
section are those which have not already been established as air
quality criteria pollutants via 42 U.S.C. 7408(a) or hazardous air
pollutants via 42 U.S.C. 7412. Section 111(d)(1) requires states to
submit to the EPA for approval a plan that establishes standards of
performance. The plan must provide that the state will implement and
enforce the standards of performance. A Federal plan is prescribed if a
state does not submit a state-specific plan or the submitted plan is
disapproved. If a state has no designated facilities for a standards of
performance source category, it may submit a negative declaration in
lieu of a state plan for that source category according to 40 CFR
60.23a(b) and 62.06.

II. Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Regulations

    A municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill is defined in 40 CFR
60.41(f) as, ``an entire disposal facility in a contiguous geographical
space where household waste is placed in or on land.'' Other substances
may be placed in the landfill which are regulated under Subtitle D of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 40 CFR 257.2. MSW
landfills emit gases generated by the decomposition of organic
compounds or evolution of new organic compounds from the deposited
waste. The EPA regulations specifically delineate measures to control
methane and nonmethane organic compound (NMOC) emissions, which can
adversely impact public health.
    Standards of Performance for new MSW landfills, as codified at 40
CFR part 60, subpart XXX (subpart XXX), set standards for air
emissions, operating standards for collection and control systems, test
methods and procedures, compliance provisions, monitoring of
operations, reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirements, and
specifications for active collection systems. Subpart XXX applies to
facilities that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification
after July 17, 2014. The Emission Guidelines and Compliance Times for
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, as codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Cf (subpart Cf, or Emission Guidelines), apply to states with MSW
landfills that accepted waste after November 8, 1987 and commenced
construction, reconstruction, or modification before July 17, 2014.
Such landfills are considered to be ``existing'' landfills. In states
with facilities meeting the applicability criteria of an existing MSW
landfill, the Administrator of an air quality program must submit a
state plan to the EPA that implements the Emission Guidelines.
According to 40 CFR 60.33f(d)(1), if the design capacity increase of a
facility subject to subpart Cf is the result of a modification, as
defined in subpart Cf, that was commenced after July 17, 2014, then the
landfill becomes subject to subpart XXX instead of subpart Cf.
    The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) submitted
a negative declaration to the EPA on March 11, 2020 pursuant to the
requirements at 40 CFR 60.23a(b) and 62.06, certifying that there are
no existing source MSW landfills in the state subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. ME DEP stated that its
three landfills potentially subject to subpart Cf have made operational
or physical changes such that the state is no longer required to
develop a state plan to regulate these landfills as existing sources.
One landfill closed in late 2009 and pre-control emissions of NMOC are
less than 34 megagrams per year, meeting removal criteria via 40 CFR
60.33f(f). The other two landfills have recently expanded their
capacity and satisfy the definition of modification by commencing
construction after July 17, 2014 and are therefore subject to Federal
CAA landfill regulations pursuant to subpart XXX.
    The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM)
submitted a negative declaration to the EPA on July 28, 2020 pursuant
to the requirements at 40 CFR 60.23a(b) and 62.06, certifying that
there are no existing source MSW landfills in the state subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf. RI DEM stated it only has
one operating landfill, which expanded its capacity and commenced
construction on the new phase in September 2014. The landfill satisfies
the definition of modification by commencing construction after July
17, 2014 and is therefore subject to Federal CAA landfill regulations
pursuant to subpart XXX.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the Maine and Rhode Island negative
declarations. These negative declarations satisfy the requirements of
40 CFR 60.23a(b) and 62.06, serving in lieu of a CAA 111(d) state plan
for existing source MSW landfills.
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this
Federal Register publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the negative declarations
should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective
April 12, 2021 without further notice unless the Agency receives
relevant adverse comments by March 15, 2021.
    If the EPA receives such comments, we will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on April 12, 2021 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if the EPA receives
adverse comments on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule
and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule,
the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the

rule that are not the subject of adverse comments.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)
plan submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and
applicable Federal regulations (40 CFR 62.04). Thus, in reviewing
111(d) plan submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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);
     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 the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the 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. The 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 April 12, 2021. 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)).
    Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to
file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed
rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of
this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for
judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can withdraw
this direct final rule and address comment(s) in the final rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 3, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    Part 62 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLAN FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart U--Maine

0
2. Add an undesignated center heading and Sec.  62.4995 to read as
follows:

Emissions From Existing Solid Waste Landfills

Sec.  62.4995  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    On March 11, 2020, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
submitted a letter certifying no existing source Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, operate within the
State's jurisdiction.

Subpart OO--Rhode Island

0
3. Revise Sec.  62.9985 to read as follows:

Sec.  62.9985  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    On July 28, 2020, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management submitted a letter certifying no existing source Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, operate
within the State's jurisdiction.

[FR Doc. 2021-02543 Filed 2-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Memorandum

Subject:	EPA Response to AF&PA Paper Entitled “MACT Hammer ICR and
Importance of 	Court Vacatur of Boiler MACT”

To:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0038

Date:		June 3, 2008

	On March 12, 2008, AF&PA sent by e-mail to Peter Tsirigotis, Director
of the Sector Policy and Programs Division,  a paper entitled “MACT
Hammer ICR and Importance of Court Vacatur of Boiler MACT”
(Category-Vacatur Paper).  The Category-Vacatur Paper was not submitted
to the docket at that time and was sent to EPA after the January 2, 2008
close of the first comment period on EPA’s ICR package.  AF&PA
submitted the Category-Vacatur Paper during the second comment period as
an attachment to its May 18, 2008 comments on EPA’s final ICR package
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0038 – 0096.1, Attachment B).

	In the Category-Vacatur Paper, AF&PA notes that the obligation under
section 112(j) to apply for a source-specific MACT determination
attaches only to an owner or operator of equipment that belongs to a
source category established by EPA under section 112(c).  AF&PA goes on
the argue that at present, no such source category exists for ICI
boilers and process heaters (“ICI boilers/heaters”) because,
according to AF&PA, when the D.C. Circuit vacated the MACT Rule for this
source category in NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (2007), it also vacated
the category listing because the category listing was an integral
component of the nullified 2004 Rule.  AF&PA concludes that Section
112(j) does not apply to ICI boiler/heaters of any sort.

	AF&PA’s position is without merit.  Though AF&PA is correct that
judicial review of a source category listing under section 112(c)(1)
(“listing decision”) is available when EPA issues emission standards
under section 112(d) for such category, the validity of the ICI
boiler/process heater listing was not challenged by any party in NRDC v.
EPA and the Court’s decision does not address the validity of the
listing decision.  Section 112(c)(1) requires, in relevant part, that
EPA establish a list of all major sources of hazardous air pollutants.
Section 112(c)(2) requires that EPA establish emission standards under
section 112(d) for each source category listed pursuant to (c)(1).  In
NRDC v. EPA, no party argued that the listing of ICI boilers/process
heaters pursuant to section 112(c)(1) was inappropriate.  Even now,
AF&PA does not offer any basis for such an argument except for its
conclusory claim that vacatur of a 112(d) NESHAP necessarily vacates a
112(c)(1) listing.

	The basis for a listing of a major source category under 112(c) is a
finding that there are major sources of HAP within the category.  The
decision in NRDC v. EPA does not undermine the basis for the listing and
it is hard to imagine that a vacatur of any NESHAP standard would ever
do so unless the basis for the vacatur was that there were no major
sources in the category to which the NESHAP standard applied – a very
unlikely scenario that is clearly not present here.

	AF&PA makes much of EPA statements explaining that the description of
source categories may be revised and that ultimately a definition of a
category will be incorporated in each rule establishing a NESHAP for
that category.  However, it does not follow, as AF&PA suggests, that the
112(c) listing merges with and is inseparable from a NESHAP promulgated
pursuant to section 112(d).  EPA recognizes that the vacatur in NRDC v.
EPA turned on definitional issues.  However, the definitional issues
identified by the court do not call into question the basis for section
112(c) listing – that there are ICI boilers and process heaters that
are major sources of HAP.

	Most importantly, as noted above, no party argued that the listing of
ICI boilers/process heaters pursuant to section 112(c)(1) was
inappropriate and the Court’s decision does not address the validity
of the listing decision.  Therefore, AF&PA’s position that the listing
decision has been vacated lacks merit.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12629-12631]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4913]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66464; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2011-55; SR-NYSEAmex-2011-84]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
Amex LLC; Notice of Filing of Partial Amendment No. 2 to Proposed Rule
Changes, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Adopting New Rule 107C To
Establish a Retail Liquidity Program on a Pilot Basis To Attract
Additional Retail Order Flow to the Exchanges

February 24, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On October 19, 2011, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and
NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' and together with NYSE, the ``Exchanges'')
each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
establish a Retail Liquidity Program (``Program'') on a pilot basis for
a period of one year from the date of implementation, if approved. The
proposed rule changes were published for comment in the Federal
Register on November 9, 2011.\3\ The Commission received 28 comments on
the NYSE proposal \4\ and 4 comments on the NYSE Amex proposal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 65671 (November 2,
2011), 76 FR 69774 (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-84); 65672 (November 2, 2011),
76 FR 69788 (SR-NYSE-2011-55).
    \4\ See Letters to the Commission from Sal Arnuk, Joe Saluzzi
and Paul Zajac, Themis Trading LLC, dated October 17, 2011 (``Themis
Letter''); Garret Cook, dated November 4, 2011 (``Cook Letter'');
James Johannes, dated November 27, 2011 (``Johannes Letter''); Ken
Voorhies, dated November 28, 2011 (``Voorhies Letter''); William
Wuepper, dated November 28, 2011 (``Wuepper Letter''); A. Joseph,
dated November 28, 2011 (``Joseph Letter''); Leonard Amoruso,
General Counsel, Knight Capital, Inc., dated November 28, 2011
(``Knight Letter''); Kevin Basic, dated November 28, 2011 (``Basic
Letter''); J. Fournier, dated November 28, 2011 (Fournier Letter'');
Ullrich Fischer, CTO, PairCo, dated November 28, 2011 (``PairCo
Letter''); James Angel, Associate Professor of Finance, McDonough
School of Business, Georgetown University, dated November 28, 2011
(``Angel Letter''); Jordan Wollin, dated November 29, 2011 (``Wollin
Letter''); Aaron Schafter, President, Great Mountain Capital
Management LLC, dated November 29, 2011 (``Great Mountain Capital
Letter''); Wayne Koch, Trader, Bright Trading, dated November 29,
2011 (``Koch Letter''); Kurt Schact, CFA, Managing Director, and
James Allen, CFA, Head, Capital Markets Policy, CFA Institute, dated
November 30, 2011 (``CFA Letter''); David Green, Bright Trading,
dated November 30, 2011 (``Green Letter''); Robert Bright, Chief
Executive Officer, and Dennis Dick, CFA, Market Structure
Consultant, Bright Trading LLC, dated November 30, 2011 (``Bright
Trading Letter''); Bodil Jelsness, dated November 30, 2011
(``Jelsness Letter''); Christopher Nagy, Managing Director, Order
Routing and Market Data Strategy, TD Ameritrade, dated November 30,
2011 (``TD Ameritrade Letter''); Laura Kenney, dated November 30,
2011 (``Kenney Letter''); Suhas Daftuar, Hudson River Trading LLC,
dated November 30, 2011 (``Hudson River Trading Letter''); Bosier
Parsons, Bright Trading LLC, dated November 30, 2011 (``Parsons
Letter''); Mike Stewart, Head of Global Equities, UBS, dated
November 30, 2011 (``UBS Letter''); Dr. Larry Paden, Bright Trading,
dated December 1, 2011 (``Paden Letter''); Thomas Dercks, dated
December 1, 2011 (``Dercks Letter''); Eric Swanson, Secretary, BATS
Global Markets, Inc., dated December 6, 2011 (``BATS Letter''); Ann
Vlcek, Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association, dated December 7, 2011 (``SIFMA
Letter''); and Al Patten, dated December 29, 2011 (``Patten
Letter'').
    \5\ See Knight Letter; CFA Letter; TD Ameritrade Letter; and
letter to the Commission from Shannon Jennewein, dated November 30,
2011 (``Jennewein Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 19, 2011, the Commission designated a longer period for
Commission action on the proposed rule change, until February 7,
2012.\6\ In connection with the proposals, the Exchanges requested
exemptive relief from Rule 612(c) of Regulation NMS,\7\ which prohibits
a national securities exchange from accepting or ranking certain orders
based on an increment smaller than the minimum pricing

increment.\8\ The Exchanges submitted a consolidated response letter on
January 3, 2012.\9\ On January 17, 2012, each Exchange filed Amendment
No. 1 to its proposal.\10\ On February 7, 2012, the Commission
instituted proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed
rule changes, as modified by Amendment No. 1.\11\ The comment period
for the Commission's Order Instituting Proceedings is set to expire on
March 5, 2012, and the Exchanges' rebuttal period is scheduled to close
on March 19, 2012.\12\ On February 16, 2012, the Exchanges filed
Partial Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66003, 76 FR 80445
(December 23, 2011).
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.612(c).
    \8\ The Exchanges amended the exemptive relief request on
January 13, 2012. See Letter from Janet M. McGinness, Senior Vice
President-Legal and Corporate Secretary, Office of the General
Counsel, NYSE Euronext to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission.
    \9\ See Letter to the Commission from Janet McGinnis, Senior
Vice President, Legal & Corporate Secretary, Legal & Government
Affairs, NYSE Euronext, dated January 3, 2012 (``Exchanges' Response
Letter'').
    \10\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchanges modified the proposals as
follows: (1) To state that Retail Member Organizations may receive
free executions for their retail orders and the fees and credits for
liquidity providers and Retail Member Organizations would be
determined based on experience with the Retail Liquidity Program in
the first several months; (2) to correct a typographical error
referring to the amount of minimum price improvement on a 500 share
order; (3) to indicate the Retail Liquidity Identifier would be
initially available on each Exchange's proprietary data feeds, and
would be later available on the public market data stream; and (4)
to limit the Retail Liquidity Program to securities that trade at
prices equal to or greater than $1 per share.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-66346, 77 FR
7628 (February 13, 2012) (``Order Instituting Proceedings'').
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule changes, as modified by Amendment No. 2, from interested
persons.

II. Description of the Partial Amendment No. 2

    In Amendment No. 2, the Exchanges propose to make three changes to
proposed Rule 107C, which establishes the Retail Liquidity Provider
program: (1) Limit the definition of ``Retail Order''; (2) modify the
definition of the Retail Liquidity Identifier; and (3) clarify the
treatment of odd lots, round lots, and part of a round lot orders.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In addition, the Exchanges propose to make conforming
changes to the Form 19b-4 and Exhibit 1 that they submitted in
connection with the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchanges propose to amend proposed Rule 107C(a)(3) to
remove from the definition of ``Retail Order'' proprietary orders of
Retail Member Organizations \14\ that result from liquidating a
position acquired from the internalization of orders that otherwise
meet the definition of ``Retail Order.'' As amended, the definition of
``Retail Order'' thus would be limited to ``an agency order that
originates from a natural person and is submitted to the Exchange by an
RMO, provided that no change is made to the terms of the order with
respect to price or side of market and the order does not originate
from a trading algorithm or any other computerized methodology.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As described in the Commission's Order Instituting
Proceedings, Retail Member Organizations are Exchange member
organizations that conduct a retail business or handle retail orders
on behalf of another broker-dealer, apply to the Exchanges to obtain
the ``Retail Member Organization'' designation, and attest that the
order flow they would provide under the Program would satisfy the
``Retail Order'' definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchanges would add language to the definitions of
``Retail Order'' and ``Retail Price Improvement Order'' (``RPI'') in
proposed Rules 107C(a)(3) and 107C(a)(4), respectively, to clarify that
both may include odd lot, round lot, and part of round lot orders. The
Exchanges explain further in the Amendment that RPIs would be ranked
and allocated according to price and time of entry into the Exchange
systems consistent with Exchange Rule 55, 61, and 72, and therefore
without regard to whether the size entered is an odd lot, round lot, or
part of round lot amount. Similarly, the Exchanges explain that Retail
Orders would interact with RPIs according to the priority and
allocation rules of the Program and without regard to whether they are
odd lots, round lots, or parts of round lots. According to the
Amendment, Retail Orders may be designated as Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3
under proposed Rule 107C(k) without regard to the size of the order.
However, the Exchanges note that, pursuant to the rules of the
Consolidated Tape Association, executions less than a round lot will
not print to the tape or be considered the last sale.
    Third, the Exchanges would amend proposed Rule 107C(j) to add to
the definition of Retail Liquidity Identifier that the identifier shall
reflect the symbol for the particular security and the side (buy or
sell) of the RPI interest, but shall not include the price or size of
the RPI interest. The previously proposed definition of the Retail
Liquidity Identifier did not contain these details. Rather, it said
only that an identifier shall be disseminated through proprietary data
feeds or as appropriate through the Consolidation Quote System when RPI
interest priced at least $0.001 better than the best protected bid or
best protected offer \15\ for a particular security is available in
Exchange systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Under proposed Rule 107C(a)(4), the terms protected bid and
protected offer would have the same meaning as defined in Rule
600(b)(57) of Regulation NMS. Rule 600(b)(57) of Regulation NMS
defines ``protected bid'' and ``protected offer'' as ``a quotation
in an NMS stock that: (i) [i]s displayed by an automated trading
center; (ii) [i]s disseminated pursuant to an effective national
market system plan; and (iii) [i]s an automated quotation that is
the best bid or best offer of a national securities exchange, the
best bid or best offer of the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., or the best
bid or best offer of a national securities association other than
the best bid or best offer of the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.'' 17 CFR
242.600(b)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
changes, as modified by Amendment No. 2, are consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2011-55 or NYSEAmex-2011-84 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2011-55 or
NYSEAmex-2011-84. This file number should be included on the subject
line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your
comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission
will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
changes that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule changes between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official

business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at principal
office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number
SR-NYSE-2011-55 or SR-NYSEAmex-2011-84 and should be submitted on or
before March 22, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4913 Filed 2-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26789-26790]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10361]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9941-83-OEI]

Agency Information Collection Activities OMB Responses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  This document announces the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA regulations are listed
in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Courtney Kerwin<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and please refer to the appropriate
EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests

OMB Approvals

    EPA ICR Number 2449.02; Water Quality Standards Regulatory
Clarifications (Final Rule); 40 CFR part 131; was approved without
change on 12/31/2015; OMB Number 2040-0286; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 1039.14; Monthly Progress Reports (Renewal); 48 CFR
part 1552.211; was approved with change on 12/30/2015; OMB Number 2030-
0005; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 2137.07; NESHAP for Coal- and Oil-fired Electric
Utility Steam Generating Units (Renewal); 40 CFR part 63, subparts A
and UUUUU; was approved without change on 12/23/2015; OMB Number 2060-
0567; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 2268.04; NESHAP for Paint Stripping and
Miscellaneous Surface Coating at Area Sources (Renewal); 40 CFR part
63, subparts HHHHHH and A; was approved without change on 12/22/2015;
OMB Number 2060-0607; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 1983.07; NESHAP for Carbon Black, Ethylene, Cyanide,
and Spandex (Renewal); 40 CFR part 63, subparts A and YY; was approved
without change on 12/22/2015; OMB Number 2060-0489; expires on 12/31/
2018.
    EPA ICR Number 1055.11; NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (Renewal); 40 CFR
part 60, subparts A and BB; was approved without change on 12/22/2015;
OMB Number 2060-0021; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 1831.06; NESHAP for Ferroalloys Production:
Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese (Renewal); 40 CFR part 63, subpart
XXX; was approved without change on 12/22/2015; OMB Number 2060-0391;
expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 2237.04; NESHAP for Gasoline Distribution Bulk
Terminals, Bulk Plants, Pipeline Facilities and Gasoline Dispensing
Facilities (Renewal); 40 CFR part 63, subparts A, BBBBBB and CCCCCC;
was approved without change on 12/22/2015; OMB Number 2060-0620;
expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 2152.05; Clean Air Interstate Rule to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particle Matter and Ozone (Renewal); 40
CFR parts 51 and 96; was approved without change on 12/22/2015; OMB
Number 2060-0570; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 2385.06; Emission Guidelines for Commercial and
Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) units (Renewal); 40 CFR
part 60, subpart DDDD; was approved without change on 12/22/2015; OMB
Number 2060-0664; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 2170.06; Revisions to the Air Emissions Reporting
Requirements: Revisions to Lead (Pb) Reporting Threshold and
Clarifications to Technical Reporting Details (Final Rule); 40 CFR part
51; was approved without change on 12/22/2015; OMB Number 2060-0580;
expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 1748.10; State Small Business Stationary Source
Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Programs (SBTCP)
Annual Reporting Form (Renewal); was approved without change on 12/21/
2015; OMB Number 2060-0337; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 1676.06; Clean Air Act Tribal Authority (Renewal);
40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50, and 81; was approved without change on 12/
18/2015; OMB Number 2060-0306; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 1617.08; Servicing of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners
(Renewal); 40 CFR part 82; was approved without change on 12/17/2015;
OMB Number 2060-0247; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 1395.09; Emergency Planning and Release Notification
Requirements under Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
Sections 302, 303, and 304 (Renewal); 40 CFR part 355; was approved
without change on 12/16/2015; OMB Number 2050-0092; expires on 12/31/
2018.
    EPA ICR Number 1352.13; Community Right-to-Know Reporting
Requirements Under Sections 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (Renewal); 40 CFR part 370; was
approved with change on 12/16/2015; OMB Number 2050-0072; expires on
12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 0370.25; Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program
(Renewal); 40 CFR parts 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, and 124; was approved
with change on 12/8/2015; OMB Number 2040-0042; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 1506.12; NSPS for Municipal Waste Combustors
(Renewal); 40 CFR part 60, subparts A, Ea, and Eb; was approved with
change on 12/1/2015; OMB Number 2060-0210; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 1985.06; NESHAP for Leather Finishing Operations
(Renewal); 40 CFR part 63, subparts A and TTTT; was approved with
change on 12/1/2015; OMB Number 2060-0478; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 0982.11; NSPS for Metallic Mineral Processing Plants
(Renewal); 40 CFR part 60, subparts A and LL; was approved with change
on 12/1/2015; OMB Number 2060-0016; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 1964.06; NESHAP for Wet-Formed Fiberglass Mat
Production (Renewal); 40 CFR part 63, subparts A and HHHH; was approved
with change on 12/1/2015; OMB Number 2060-0496; expires on 12/31/2018.
    EPA ICR Number 1807.08; NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient
Production (Renewal); 40 CFR part 63, subparts A and MMM; was approved
without change on 12/1/2015; OMB

Number 2060-0370; expires on 12/31/2018.

Comment Filed

    EPA ICR Number 2519.01; Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions
(Proposed Rule); 40 CFR part 262, subparts E, H, F; OMB filed comment
on 12/15/2015.
    EPA ICR Number 1692.08; NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries (Proposed
Rule); 40 CFR part 63, subpart CC; OMB filed comment on 12/15/2015.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collections Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-10361 Filed 5-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


E [C]/R Incorporated                   Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

MEMORANDUM

DATE:		April 13, 2011

TO:		Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

FROM:	Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.

SUBJECT:	Summary of the April 5, 2011 Teleconference with Exterran Regarding the Proposed Amendments to the NSPS for Stationary Engines

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

INTRODUCTION              A teleconference was held between EPA and Exterran to discuss issues related to proposed amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for stationary compression ignition (CI) and spark ignition (SI) engines, in 40 CFR part 60, subparts IIII and JJJJ, respectively (see 75 FR 32612).   Exterran wanted to specifically discuss what EPA's position is on the definitions of reconstruction and the date of manufacture.

ATTENDEES

Melanie King, EPA Mike Wasson, Exterran Michael Horowitz, EPA Bill Bowes, Exterran Tanya Parise, EC/R Inc. James Harrison, Exterran Jeff Holmstead, Bracewell & Giuliani Kyle Jantzen, Exterran Tim Wilkins, Bracewell & Giuliani

SUMMARY OF TELECONFERENCE

	The purpose of the teleconference was to discuss the comments submitted by Exterran on the proposed amendments to the NSPS for stationary engines.  The main issues discussed were the proposed additions of the definitions of "reconstruct" and "date of manufacture."  More details on Exterran's specific concerns can be found in Exterran's comments on the proposed amendments, see EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0295-0046.


Record for the Final Metal Product and Machinery Rule Recreational and Non Use Benefits, Weighted ( Directs + All to 433 Upgrade Option)

Low Mid High Fishing $ 29,051,969.45 $ 54,336,810.28 $ 93,460,151.85 Boating $ 36,651,765.07 $ 65,103,399.01 $ 101,522,565.15 Viewing $ 56,656,709.01 $ 79,536,038.26 $ 102,289,569.81 Recreational $ 122,360,443.53 $ 198,976,247.55 $ 297,272,286.81 Non Use $ 61,180,221.76 $ 99,488,123.77 $ 148,636,143.40 Total $ 183,540,665.29 $ 298,464,371.32 $ 445,908,430.21 Activity Annual Benefits ( 2001$)

February 14, 2003 Page 1 of 1 exlrec. xls  Recreational


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 19619]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07916]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1064]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Application for Participation in the
Medical Device Fellowship Program

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Application for Participation in
the Medical Device Fellowship Program; Form FDA 3608'' has been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 24, 2014, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Application for
Participation in the Medical Device Fellowship Program; Form FDA 3608''
to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has
assigned OMB control number 0910-0551. The approval expires on March
31, 2017. A copy of the supporting statement for this information
collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: April 2, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-07916 Filed 4-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P