7097 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Proposed Rules your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81  2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Background and Purpose Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.) requires the Coast Guard and other rulemaking agencies to review existing rules for their economic impact on small entities. The Coast Guard reviews the small entities impact of its existing rules pursuant to a plan adopted by the Department of Transportation ( DOT) and described in Appendix D of DOT's semiannual regulatory agenda ( see 67 FR 74799, December 9, 2002 for the latest publication of the agenda). Where our 610 Analysis Year shows that a rule has a `` significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities'' ( SEIOSNOSE), we begin a 610 Review Year. During the 610 Review Year, we determine whether and how the SEIOSNOSE can be lessened. In making that determination, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to consider the:   Continued need for the rule.   Nature of public complaints or comments received concerning the rule.   Rule's complexity.   Extent to which the rule overlaps, duplicates, or conflicts with other Federal rules and, to the extent feasible, with State and local governmental rules.   Length of time since the rule has been evaluated or the degree to which technology, economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected by the rule. In the fall 2002 agenda, we concluded the 610 Analysis Year for several rules and determined that 33 CFR parts 179, 181, and 183 significantly affect enough small entities to warrant a 610 Review Year for the three parts. Section 610 requires us to notify you that the Review Year is underway and to solicit your input, which we will consider in conducting our review. In the fall 2003 agenda, we will announce the results of that review. We may determine that no further action seems possible or advisable at this time, in which case we will explain the basis for that determination. Or, we may determine that a rulemaking project is needed, to delete or amend the existing rule in a way that will lessen its smallentity impact. We will indicate whether a rulemaking project will begin promptly or be scheduled at a later date.

Dated: February 4, 2003. Harvey E. Johnson, Rear Admiral, Coast Guard, Director of Operations Policy. [ FR Doc. 03   3461 Filed 2   11   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910   15   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP   2002   0274; FRL   7288   7]

Methoprene, Watermelon Mosaic Virus 2 Coat Protein, and Zucchini Yellow Mosaic Virus Coat Protein; Proposed Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is proposing to amend the exemption expression for methoprene from the requirements of a tolerance when used on food commodities as an insect larvicide, and to revoke all the tolerances for methoprene because a recent EPA review finds that no harm is expected to the public from exposure to residues of methoprene. Therefore, these tolerances are no longer needed and their associated uses are proposed to be covered by tolerance exemptions. Also, EPA is proposing to revoke the exemptions for watermelon mosaic virus 2 coat protein, and zucchini yellow mosaic virus coat protein and specific portions of the viral genetic material when used as plantincorporated protectants in squash, because these exemptions are covered in other sections of 40 CFR part 180. Because methoprene's 37 tolerances were previously reassessed, the regulatory actions proposed in this document do not contribute toward the Agency's tolerance reassessment requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA) section 408( q), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) of 1996. By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2002   0274, must be received on or before April 14, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Mandula, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( 7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   7378; e mail address: mandula. barbara@ epa. gov.

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)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) 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 Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0274. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., 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 ( 703) 305   5805.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 17 Feb 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12FEP1. SGM 12FEP1 7098 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Proposed Rules 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http:// www. access. gpo. gov/ nara/ cfr/ cfrhtml_ 00/ Title_ 40/ 40cfr180_ 00. html, a beta site currently under development. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2002   0274. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2002   0274. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency ( 7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2002   0274. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2002   0274. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 17 Feb 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12FEP1. SGM 12FEP1 7099 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Proposed Rules disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the proposed rule or collection activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

F. What Can I Do if I Wish the Agency to Maintain a Tolerance that the Agency Proposes to Revoke?

This proposed rule provides a comment period of 60 days for any person to state an interest in retaining a tolerance proposed for revocation. If EPA receives a comment within the 60   day period to that effect, EPA will not proceed to revoke the tolerance immediately. However, EPA will take steps to ensure the submission of any needed supporting data and will issue an order in the Federal Register under FFDCA section 408( f) if needed. The order would specify data needed and the time frames for its submission, and would require that within 90 days some person or persons notify EPA that they will submit the data. If the data are not submitted as required in the order, EPA will take appropriate action under FFDCA. EPA issues a final rule after considering comments that are submitted in response to this proposed rule. In addition to submitting comments in response to this proposal, you may also submit an objection at the time of the final rule. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. After the specified time, issues resolved in the final rule cannot be raised again in any subsequent proceedings.

II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA is proposing to exempt methoprene from the requirement of a tolerance, and therefore to revoke the existing tolerances for methoprene. The other actions involve maintaining exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for specific pesticides, while removing redundant portions of 40 CFR part 180 relating to those tolerance exemptions. 1. Methoprene. EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.359 for residues in or on specific food commodities for control of hornflies because review of methoprene toxicity data indicate that these tolerances are not necessary to protect human health or the environment. An EPA Decision Document on Tolerance Reassessment for Methoprene, prepared by EPA's Inert Ingredient Focus Group ( IIFG) and finalized in August 2002, finds that methoprene is of low toxicity. More specifically, the document finds that methoprene is not acutely toxic, and is neither irritating to skin or eyes, nor is it a dermal sensitizer. Developmental toxicity was not observed in studies with rabbits and mice. Methoprene is not carcinogenic in studies in rats and mice, and is not mutagenic in the Ames assay or in the dominant lethal assay. No adverse effects were seen in rats in a 2   year study. Metabolism studies in rats, mice, guinea pigs, and cows indicate rapid biodegradation of methoprene and its metabolites in mammals and that its metabolites are incorporated into natural body constituents ( primarily fatty acids). The decision document concludes: i. Determination of safety. Based on its review and evaluation of the available information, 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 residues of methoprene. ii. IIFG inert ingredient focus group recommendation/ deferral to BPPD management. At this time, 40 CFR 180.1033 specifies that methoprene is exempt from the requirement of a tolerance in or on all raw agricultural commodities when used to control mosquito larvae. There are also numerical tolerances for specific commodities in 40 CFR 180.359. The methoprene risk assessment in the IIFG decision document used conservative assumptions that assumed the existence of a broad based tolerance exemption. A broad based tolerance exemption assumes that methoprene can be used on all crop commodities and that these crop commodities can be used as feed. The safety finding supports the tolerance exemption approach. Based on the IIFG report, EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.359 by removing that section from the CFR. EPA is also proposing to exempt methoprene from the requirement of a tolerance in or on all food commodities when methoprene is used as an insect larvicide. ( A copy of the IIFG report will be made available in the docket for this proposed rule.) 2. Two virus coat proteins and the genetic material necessary to produce the coat proteins in squash. EPA is proposing to revoke the tolerance exemptions in 40 CFR 180.1132 for watermelon mosaic virus 2 coat protein, and zucchini yellow mosaic virus coat protein and specific portions of the viral genetic material when used as plantincorporated protectants in squash because the tolerance exemptions are duplicated in the more recent, broader 40 CFR 180.1184. The exemption in 40 CFR 180.1184 includes all food commodities, rather than being limited to squash. Therefore, 40 CFR 180.1132 is not needed to protect human health and the environment.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking these Actions A `` tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U. S. C. 301 et seq., as amended by the FQPA of 1996, Public Law 104   170, authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw agricultural commodities and processed foods ( 21 U. S. C. 346( a)).

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 17 Feb 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12FEP1. SGM 12FEP1 7100 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Proposed Rules C. When Do These Actions Become Effective?

The Agency is proposing that these actions become effective upon publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. The only effect of the rule will be to remove redundancies and inconsistencies 40 CFR part 180. No person or entity is expected to be adversely affected.

D. What Is the Contribution to Tolerance Reassessment?

By law, EPA is required by August 2006 to reassess the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996. As of November 20, 2002, EPA had reassessed over 6,490 tolerances. All of the tolerances and tolerance exemptions in this proposed rule have already been reassessed and counted towards the total number of tolerances that EPA must reassess by August 2006. Therefore, this rule will add zero tolerances to the required total.

III. Are the Proposed Actions Consistent with International Obligations?

The tolerance revocations in this proposal are not discriminatory and are designed to ensure that both domestically produced and imported foods meet the food safety standards established by the FFDCA. The same food safety standards apply to domestically produced and imported foods. EPA is working to ensure that the U. S. tolerance reassessment program under FQPA does not disrupt international trade. EPA considers Codex Maximum Residue Limits ( MRLs) in setting U. S. tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to promote the coordination of international food standards. It is EPA's policy to harmonize U. S. tolerances with Codex MRLs to the extent possible, provided that the MRLs achieve the level of protection required under FFDCA. EPA's effort to harmonize with Codex MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) documents. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support ( 65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) ( FRL   6559   3). This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the internet at http:// www. epa. gov/. On the Home Page select `` Laws, Regulations, and Dockets,'' then select `` Regulations and Proposed Rules'' and then look up the entry for this document under `` Federal Register   Environmental Documents.'' You can also go directly to the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:/ / www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to revoke specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) has exempted this type of action ( i. e., a tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this proposed 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 proposed 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 as required by 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 other 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). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether revocations of tolerances might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This analysis was published on December 17, 1997 ( 62 FR 66020), and was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Revocation of the tolerance exemptions discussed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, because the pesticides remain subject to existing tolerance exemptions. Any comments about the Agency's determination should be submitted to EPA along with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a final rule. 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 proposed 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 the FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this proposed 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 implication.'' `` 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 proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 17 Feb 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12FEP1. SGM 12FEP1 7101 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 29 / Wednesday, February 12, 2003 / Proposed Rules 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 proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 31, 2003. Janet L. Andersen, Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 180 be amended as follows:

PART 180   [ AMENDED]

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

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

§ 180.359 [ Removed]

2. Section 180.359 is removed. 3. Section 180.1033 is revised to read as follows:

§ 180.1033 Methoprene; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Methoprene is exempt from the requirement of a tolerance in or on all food commodities when used to control insect larvae.

§ 180.1132 [ Removed]

4. Section 180.1132 is removed. [ FR Doc. 03   3236 Filed 2   11   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [ Docket No. NHTSA   02   13957; Notice 01]

RIN 2127   AI97 Glare from Headlamps and Other Front Mounted Lamps: Adaptive Frontal lighting Systems Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA), Department of Transportation ( DOT). ACTION: Request for comments. SUMMARY: This document requests comments on Adaptive Frontal lighting Systems ( AFS). The automotive industry is introducing Adaptive Frontal lighting Systems that can actively change the intensity and direction of headlamp illumination in response to changes in vehicle speed or roadway geometry, such as providing more light to the left in a left hand curve. The agency is concerned that such headlighting systems may cause additional glare to oncoming drivers, change the easily recognizable and consistent appearance of oncoming vehicles, and have failure modes that may cause glare for long periods of time. The agency is also interested in learning whether these adaptive systems can provide any demonstrated reduction in crash risk during nighttime driving. Thus, the Agency is seeking information on these systems to assess their potential for a net increase or decrease in the risk of a crash. Of special interest to us are the human factors and fleet study research that may have been completed to assure these systems do not increase the safety risk for oncoming and preceding drivers. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 14, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL   401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. It is requested, but not required, that two copies of the comments be provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a. m. to 5 p. m. Comments may be submitted electronically by logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at http:// dms. dot. gov. Click on `` Help'' to obtain instructions for filing the document electronically. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, please contact Mr. Richard L. Van Iderstine , Office of Rulemaking, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Van Iderstine's telephone number is ( 202) 366   2720 and his facsimile number is ( 202) 366   4329. For legal issues please contact Mr. Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel, at the same address. Mr. Vinson's telephone number is ( 202) 366   5263. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The development of Adaptive Frontallighting Systems ( AFS) has been ongoing for about a decade. However, there are much earlier versions of such situation adaptive headlighting that have been sold to the public. In the United States, the Tucker automobile was equipped with one, and in Europe, Citron manufactured automobiles with them, too. These had headlamps that would swivel with the steering system. In 1993, funded by the European Union's Eureka Project EU 1403, member countries and their manufacturers ( BMW, Bosch, Daimler Benz, Fiat, Ford, Hella, Magneti Marelli, Opel, Osram, Philips, PSA, Renault, Valeo, Volkswagen, Volvo, and ZKW) began defining requirements for AFS. Additionally, Japanese and North American manufacturers have been developing these systems. The goal of these AFS is to actively control headlamp beam pattern performance to meet the dynamic illumination needs of changing roadway geometries and visibility conditions. Today, this goal has been partially realized by several lighting manufacturers who have developed systems incorporating various aspects of AFS functionality. An initial application, called `` bending light,'' automatically reaims the lower beam headlamps to the left or right depending on the steering angle of the vehicle, with the intent to better illuminate curves in the roadway. Also, it is likely that these initial bending light offerings will have part of the light emitted from the headlamp move within the beam to the left or right to increase the amount of light shining into the curve. There are other ideas being explored that, for example, would reduce the intensity of illumination in well lit urban driving situations, reduce the intensity of lower beam foreground light in wet weather to lessen the light that reflects off the roadway into other drivers' eyes, and various other performance changes. Prototype systems have been demonstrated by motor vehicle lighting companies to motor vehicle manufacturers, and recently to government lighting experts from numerous countries around the world. This was last done in Geneva, Switzerland in the Spring of 2000, during the Forty Fourth Session of the Meeting of Experts on Lighting and Light Signalling ( GRE) where ten different AFS prototypes were available on cars for driving. The GRE is a subgroup of the United Nations' ( UN) World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations ( WP. 29). In order to introduce this new headlighting technology in Europe, regulations have to be modified within the UN Economic Commission for Europe, under its 1958 Agreement titled: `` Agreement concerning the Adoption of Uniform Technical Prescriptions ( Rev. 2).'' The first amendment to accommodate swiveling ( or bending) of the low beam function VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 16: 17 Feb 11, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 12FEP1. SGM 12FEP1


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22190-22191]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08382]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88645; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-048]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Introduce a Small Retail
Broker Distribution Program

April 15, 2020.
    On August 1, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') 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 amend the EDGX fee schedule to introduce a
Small Retail Broker Distribution Program. The proposed rule change was
immediately effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on August 20, 2019.\4\
The Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule
change. On September 30, 2019, the Commission issued an order
temporarily suspending the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(C) of the Act \5\ and simultaneously instituting proceedings
under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine whether to
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (``OIP'').\7\ The
Commission received no comment letters in response to the OIP. On
February 12, 2020, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\8\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change.\9\ On April 9, 2020, the Exchange
withdrew the

proposed rule change (SR-CboeEDGX-2019-048).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86678 (August 14,
2019), 84 FR 43246 (August 20, 2019).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87163 (September 30,
2019), 84 FR 53203 (October 4, 2019).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88178 (February 12,
2020), 85 FR 9503 (February 19, 2020).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08382 Filed 4-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80685-80686]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25519]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0126]
RIN 2127-AL55

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; V2V Communications

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration withdraws a
previous proposal to create a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
requiring vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications in new light
vehicles. After the advent of new V2V communications protocol, and
after a recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision
regarding the regulations governing the 5.850-5.895 gigahertz (5.9 GHz)
band, the agency has decided to withdraw its V2V proposed rule.

DATES: NHTSA is withdrawing the proposed rule published January 12,
2017 (82 FR 3854) as of November 20, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joshua Fikentscher, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by email
[email protected] and by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Rebecca Schade,
Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by email
at [email protected]. Mailing address: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background on V2V Technology

    Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) technology consists of systems that enable
vehicles to broadcast Basic Safety Messages (BSMs) about their speed,
heading, brake status, and other vehicle information using the
radiofrequency spectrum, and to receive the same information from
surrounding vehicles also equipped with the technology. When received
in a timely manner, this information could help vehicle systems
identify potential crash situations with other vehicles and provide
warning messages to their drivers. V2V technology is distinct from
``vehicle-resident'' technologies (e.g., camera and sensor-based
systems) and would operate separately from, or complementarily to,
advanced driver assistance systems. V2V employs signals which can be
received around corners or other physical obstructions and in
suboptimal weather and light conditions, without line-of-sight
limitations that vehicle-resident technologies can face.

Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On January 12, 2017, the agency published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to create a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) for V2V communications, which NHTSA proposed to designate as
FMVSS No. 150.\1\ The NPRM proposed to mandate V2V communication
technology in all new light vehicles based on DSRC radiofrequency
transmissions,\2\ and also proposed a pathway for vehicles to comply
using non-DSRC technology if certain performance and interoperability
standards were met. The NPRM further proposed technical requirements
for the content, security, and handling of V2V messages as well as
system requirements more broadly. While the NPRM proposed to allow
compliance using non-DSRC technologies, all of the technical
requirements (and expectations about the effectiveness of V2V
communications at helping vehicles to prevent crashes) were based on
DSRC, and the proposal would have required non-DSRC technologies to be
interoperable with DSRC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 82 FR 3854.
    \2\ DSRC is a short-range wireless technology that would provide
local, nearly instantaneous message transmission with good
reliability, critical characteristics for detecting potential and
imminent crash scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM also discussed the possibility that the 5.9 gigahertz
(GHz) band of radiofrequency spectrum in which DSRC has operated might
be modified and/or opened to unlicensed devices, such as cordless
telephones and outdoor broadband transceivers.\3\ NHTSA sought comment
on what that

might mean for the effectiveness or viability of V2V systems using DSRC
technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Detailed in a Public Notice from the FCC: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-68A1_Rcd.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Comments

    NHTSA received 492 comments regarding the 2017 NPRM.\4\ More than
100 comments were submitted by organizations including, but not limited
to: automotive manufacturers, suppliers and associations, and wireless
companies and associations. There were also comments from consumer and
trade associations, nonprofits, think tanks, and Federal, State, and
local governments, and more than 350 comments were received from
individual citizens. Most organizations expressed broad support for
mandating V2V technology on all new light vehicles and had various
comments about the technical implementation thereof. Most individual
citizens who commented expressed concerns about cybersecurity, privacy,
and electromagnetic hypersensitivity, though some supported a V2V
mandate for its potential safety benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Comments are available in Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0126 at
http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also addressed the FCC proposals to allow sharing of the
5.9 GHz radio frequency band. Approximately 20 automotive organizations
addressed these proposals. The general consensus among commenters was
that the specific V2V mandate proposed in the NPRM would need to be
revisited should there be changes to the regulations governing the use
of the 5.9 GHz band.

New Technologies

    Since the release of the NPRM, one potential alternative for DSRC,
LTE \5\ Cellular-V2X, or LTE C-V2X, has emerged and is supported by
some industry stakeholders as an alternative to DSRC. While based on
cellular technology, LTE C-V2X offers device-to-device communications
without the need for a cell tower to schedule and relay messages.
Standards organizations that helped develop 5G cellular technology are
also working on a 5G-based version of C-V2X (5G C-V2X) that will focus
on device-to-device communications with the potential for enhanced
performance over either DSRC or LTE C-V2X, and potentially allow for
further advancements in vehicle platooning, advanced driving, extended
sensors, and remote driving.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ LTE, Long-Term Evolution, is a predecessor to 3G cellular
technology and a precursor to 4G cellular technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisions to the 5.9 GHz Regulations

    On November 18, 2020, the FCC issued a final rule which approved a
reallocation of the 5.9 GHz spectrum \6\ that reassigns the lower 45
MHz of the previously reserved spectrum for unlicensed use. It further
requires that 20 MHz of the 30 MHz remaining for transportation use
transition from DSRC to cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X)
technology. Of note, on April 24, 2023, the FCC granted a joint waiver
allowing deployment of C-V2X technology.\7\ The U.S. Department of
Transportation, in cooperation with the NTIA, DoD, NASA and NSF,
conducted a data-driven technical analysis to inform the FCC with the
relevant information to make a determination on the technical
parameters requested in the waiver. The FCC's April 24 action allows
proponents of C-V2X use of the upper 30 MHz of the 5.9 GHz band for
deployment. DOT has ongoing, active research in the area of whether and
how C-V2X could support safety-critical technologies.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Detailed in a First Report and Order, Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, and Order of Proposed Modification, document
FCC-CIRC2011-01, which can be found at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-367827A1.pdf.
    \7\ https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-23-343A1.pdf.
    \8\ See, e.g., https://www.transportation.gov/content/safety-band (last accessed Aug. 22, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rationale for Withdrawal

    NHTSA and the DOT believe that V2V and other vehicle-to-everything
(V2X) technologies hold tremendous promise to improve safety and to
offer innovative services to consumers. The record in response to the
NPRM supports this conclusion.
    However, given the advent of new V2V communications protocol, and
the revised regulations governing the 5.9 GHz band, the agency believes
a regulatory action to revise the proposed rulemaking cannot be
reasonably accomplished at this time. For this reason, the agency has
decided to withdraw the V2V rule at this time.

Conclusion

    NHTSA does not believe it is reasonable to move forward with the
proposal. Based on its evaluation of the available information, NHTSA
has concluded that significant analysis must be conducted before
determining whether a V2V standard is appropriate, and, if so, what
that standard would encompass. Accordingly, NHTSA withdraws the NPRM.
NHTSA will continue to monitor the development of V2V technology for
possible future vehicle safety applications. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register January 12, 2017, at 82 FR 3854, is withdrawn.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.5.
Ann Carlson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-25519 Filed 11-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I started smoking when I was 15. I purchased my Marlboro Reds at
the time legaly. Im glad there are age restrictions now for
my kids. Nine months ago I quit smoking after several times
Of trying. This time i vaped a blueberry 6mg nicotine for 3
weeks and now i dont even vape. Please extend the comment time
so all can be heard. It worked for me when drugs and expensive
Patches failed. Im sure its not 100% but its much better than
Tobacco without a doubt. Thank You for the Time,
                                                   Robby Ford


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5472]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2406]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 191, 192 and 195

[Docket ID PHMSA-2010-0026]
RIN 2137-AE59

Pipeline Safety: Miscellaneous Changes to Pipeline Safety
Regulations

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On November 29, 2011, PHMSA published in the Federal Register
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking titled: ``Miscellaneous Changes to
Pipeline Safety Regulations'' seeking comments on the need for changes
to the regulations covering pipeline safety regulations. The Committee
on Pipe and Tube Imports Ad Hoc Large Diameter Line Pipe Producers
Group Transportation Subcommittee and the Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America petitioned PHMSA to extend the comment period.
PHMSA is granting these requests and extending the comment period from
February, 3, 2012, to March 6, 2012.

DATES: The closing date for filing comments is extended from February
3, 2012, to March 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0026 and may
be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov Web Site: http://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
     Fax: 1-(202) 493-2251.
     Mail: DOT Docket Management System: U.S. DOT, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery: U.S. DOT Docket Management System; West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: You should identify the Docket No. PHMSA-2010-0026 at
the beginning of your comments. If you submit your comments by mail,
please submit two copies. To receive confirmation that PHMSA received
your comments, include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet
users may submit comments to the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Note:
    Comments are posted without changes or edits to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
There is a privacy statement published on http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Kay
McIver at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by EMail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 29, 2011, PHMSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that would make miscellaneous amendments to the pipeline safety
regulations (76 FR 73570). On January 12, 2012, the Interstate Natural
Gas Association of America requested an extension of the comment period
for that NPRM. On January 20, 2012, the Committee on Pipe and Tube
Imports Ad Hoc Large Diameter Line Pipe Producers Group Transportation
Subcommittee also requested an extension of the comment period to
further review a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
recommendation that would impact guidelines on the transportation of
pipe. PHMSA believes that extension of the comment period is warranted
based on the information provided in these requests. Therefore, PHMSA
has extended the comment period from February 3, 2012 to March 6, 2012.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 30, 2012.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-2406 Filed 2-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11110-11111]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03804]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0045]

Aerial Lifts Standard (29 CFR 1926.453); 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 the proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirement contained in the Aerial Lift
Standard. Employers who modify an aerial lift for uses other than those
provided by the manufacturer must obtain a certificate from the
manufacturer or equivalent entity certifying that the modification is
in conformance with applicable American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) standards and the OSHA Standard, and the equipment is as safe as
it was prior to the modification.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
April 27, 2020.

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 a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2009-0045,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2009-0045) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
such as social security numbers and dates of birth, 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 above address. 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 website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the below phone number to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Seleda Perryman,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of the 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 information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (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 OSHA to obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The certification requirement specified in the Aerial Lifts
Standard demonstrates that the manufacturer or an equally-qualified
entity has assessed a modified aerial lift and found that it was safe
for use by, or near, workers; and that it would provide workers with a
level of protection at least equivalent to the protection afforded by
the lift prior to modification.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection 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 information collection 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

    There are no program changes or adjustment associated with this
ICR.

The agency is, therefore, using the above per response burden to
maintain a time burden as close as is possible to the actual time of
one hour (1 hour).
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Aerial Lifts Standard in Construction.
    OMB Number: 1218-0216.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 10.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Total Responses: 10.
    Average Time per Response: 6 minutes.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

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 (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2009-0045). 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 social security numbers and
dates 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 through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available through the website and for assistance in using the internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy 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 February 20, 2020.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-03804 Filed 2-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 203 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63759-63761]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26727]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC15-11-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-914); Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information
collection (FERC-914, Cogeneration and Small Power Production--Tariff
Filings) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the
information

collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments
directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the
Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a
Notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 46257, 8/4/2015) requesting
public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-914
and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by November
20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0231, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC15-11-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-914, Cogeneration and Small Power Production--Tariff
Filings.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0231
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-914 information
collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.
    Abstract: Section 205(c) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requires
that every public utility have all of its jurisdictional rates and
tariffs on file with the Commission and make them available for public
inspection, within such time and in such form as the Commission may
designate. Section 205(d) of the FPA requires that every public utility
must provide notice to the Commission and the public of any changes to
its jurisdictional rates and tariffs, file such changes with the
Commission, and make them available for public inspection, in such
manner as directed by the Commission. In addition, FPA section 206
requires the Commission, upon complaint or its own motion, to modify
existing rates or services that are found to be unjust, unreasonable,
unduly discriminatory or preferential. FPA section 207 requires the
Commission upon complaint by a state commission and a finding of
insufficient interstate service, to order the rendering of adequate
interstate service by public utilities, the rates for which would be
filed in accordance with FPA sections 205 and 206.
    In Orders Nos. 671 and 671-A \1\, the Commission revised its
regulations that govern qualifying small power production and
cogeneration facilities. Among other things, the Commission eliminated
certain exemptions from rate regulation that were previously available
to qualifying facilities (QFs). New qualifying facilities may need to
make tariff filings if they do not meet the new exemption requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Revised Regulations Governing Small Power Production and
Cogeneration Facilities, Order No. 671, 71 FR 7852 (2/15/2006), FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,203 (2006); and Revised Regulations Governing
Small Power Production and Cogeneration Facilities, Order 671-A, 71
FR 30585 (5/30/2006), in Docket No. RM05-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC implemented the Congressional mandate of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (EPAct 2005) to establish criteria for new qualifying
cogeneration facilities by: (1) Amending the exemptions available to
qualifying facilities from the FPA and from PUHCA [resulting in the
burden imposed by FERC-914, the subject of this statement]; (2)
ensuring that these facilities are using their thermal output in a
productive and beneficial manner; that the electrical, thermal,
chemical and mechanical output of new qualifying cogeneration
facilities is used fundamentally for industrial, commercial,
residential or industrial purposes; and there is continuing progress in
the development of efficient electric energy generating technology; (3)
amending the FERC Form 556 \2\ to reflect the criteria for new
qualifying cogeneration facilities; and (4) eliminating ownership
limitations for qualifying cogeneration and small power production
facilities. The Commission satisfied the statutory mandate and its
continuing obligation to review its policies encouraging cogeneration
and small power production, energy conservation, efficient use of
facilities and resources by electric utilities, and equitable rates for
energy customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The FERC-556 is cleared separately as OMB Control No. 1902-
0075 and is not a subject of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondents: New qualifying facilities and small power
producers that do not meet Commission exemption criteria.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \3\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.

                                            FERC-914: Cogeneration and Small Power Production--Tariff Filings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annual  number                      Average      Total annual
                                                             Number of     of  responses   Total number    burden & cost  burden hours &     Cost per
                                                            respondents         per        of  responses   per response    total  annual  Respondent ($)
                                                                            respondent                          \4\            cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     (1)             (2)     (1)*(2)=(3)             (4)     (3)*(4)=(5)         (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA Section 205 Filings.................................              35               1              35             183           6,405         $13,176
                                                                                $13,176        $461,160
Electric Quarterly Reports (initial)....................               0               0               0             230               0              $0
                                                                                $16,560              $0

Electric Quarterly Reports (later)......................              35               4             140               6             840          $1,728
                                                                                $432         $60,480
Change of Status........................................              10               1              10               3              30            $216
                                                                                $216          $2,160
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL...............................................  ..............             185  ..............           7,725        $523,800         $15,120
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $72.00 per
Hour = Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure comes from
the FERC average salary of $149,489/year.

    Dated: October 15, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26727 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18047]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-1]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0300; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASO-17]

Amendment of Class D Airspace; Hollywood, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action makes a minor correction to a final rule published
in the Federal Register on July 23, 1997, amending Class D airspace at
North Perry Airport, Hollywood, FL.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC. May 10, 2010. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    In a final rule published in the Federal Register July 23, 1997 (62
FR 39430) Airspace Docket 97-ASO-7, the airspace description for North
Perry Airport, Hollywood, FL, incorrectly referenced the Miami, FL,
Class B airspace area exclusion as Class D airspace area. This action
corrects that error.
    The FAAs National Aeronautical Charting Office correctly charted
the Class B airspace area exclusion. Accordingly, since this is an
administrative change, and does not involve a change in the dimensions
or operating requirements of that airspace, notice and public
procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553 (b) are unnecessary.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Technical Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 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 Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace

* * * * *

ASO FL D Hollywood, FL [Amended]

Hollywood, North Perry Airport, FL
    (Lat. 26[deg]00'05'' N., long 80[deg]14'26'' W.)
Opa Locka Airport
    (Lat. 25[deg]54'26'' N., long 80[deg]16'48'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of the North Perry Airport;
excluding the portion north of the north boundary of the Miami, FL,
Class B airspace area and that portion south of a line connecting
the 2 points of intersection with a 4.3-mile circle centered on the
Opa Locka Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during
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.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 1, 2010.

Barry A. Knight,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-8014 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53711-53712]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21532]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0920]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Health and Diet
Survey

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by October
10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-
0545. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Road; COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Health and Diet Survey as Used by the Food and Drug Administration--
(OMB Control Number 0910-0545)--(Revision)

    We are seeking OMB approval to revise the Health and Diet Survey,
which is a voluntary consumer survey intended to gauge and to track
consumer attitudes, awareness, knowledge, and behavior regarding
various topics related to health, nutrition, physical activity, and
product labeling. Currently this collection is approved as a
traditional collection; however, the Agency wishes to employ future
collections under the generic collection process. The authority for FDA
to collect the information derives from FDA's Commissioner of Food and
Drugs authority provided in section 903(d)(2) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)).
    We will use the Health and Diet Survey findings to test and refine
our ideas, but will generally conduct further research before making
important decisions such as adopting new policies and allocating or
redirecting significant resources to support these policies.
    This survey has been repeated approximately every 3 to 5 years over
the course of the past 3 decades for the purpose of tracking changes
and trends in public opinions and consumer behavior, with some new
questions added or omitted or partially modified in each iteration in
response to emerging and current events or issues. In the next 3 years,
we plan to field the survey two to three times. We will use the
information from the Health and Diet Survey to evaluate and develop
strategies and programs to encourage and help consumers adopt healthy
diets and lifestyles. The information will also help FDA evaluate and
track consumer awareness and behavior as outcome measures of their
achievement in improving public health.
    Description of Respondents: The respondents are adults, age 18 and
older, drawn from the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
Participation will be voluntary.
    In the Federal Register of July 14, 2014 (79 FR 40760), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Number of
                  Activity                      Number of     responses per   Total annual           Average burden per response            Total hours
                                               respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive interview screener...............             100               1             100  0.083 (5 minutes)..........................               8
Cognitive interview........................              18               1              18  1..........................................              18
Pretest screener...........................           2,000               1           2,000  0.033 (2 minutes)..........................              66
Pretest....................................             200               1             200  0.25 (15 minutes)..........................              50
Survey screener............................          30,000               1          30,000  0.033 (2 minutes)..........................             990
Survey.....................................           3,000               1           3,000  0.25 (15 minutes)..........................             750
                                            =================
    Total..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ...........................................           1,882
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    We base our estimate of the number of respondents and the average
burden per response on our experience with previous Health and Diet
Surveys. We will use a cognitive interview screener with 100
individuals to recruit prospective interview participants. We estimate
that it will take a screener respondent approximately 5 minutes (0.083
hours) to complete the cognitive interview screener, for a total of 8
hours, rounded down from 8.3 hours. We will conduct cognitive
interviews with 18 participants. We estimate that it will take a
participant approximately 1 hour

to complete the interview, for a total of 18 hours. Prior to the
administration of the Health and Diet Survey, the Agency plans to
conduct a pretest to identify and resolve potential survey
administration problems. We will use a pretest screener with 2,000
individuals; we estimate that it will take a respondent approximately 2
minutes (0.033 hours) to complete the pretest screener, for a total of
66 hours. The pretest will be conducted with 200 participants; we
estimate that it will take a participant 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to
complete the pretest, for a total of 50 hours. We will use a survey
screener to select an eligible adult respondent in each household
reached by landline telephone numbers to participate in the survey. A
total of 30,000 individuals in the 50 states and the District of
Columbia will be screened by telephone. We estimate that it will take a
respondent 2 minutes (0.033 hours) to complete the screening, for a
total of 990 hours. We estimate that 3,000 eligible adults will
participate in the survey, each taking 15 minutes (0.25 hours), for a
total of 750 hours. Thus, the total estimated burden is 1,882 hours.
    We are requesting this burden for unplanned surveys so as not to
restrict our ability to gather information on consumer attitudes,
awareness, knowledge, and behavior regarding various topics related to
health, nutrition, physical activity, and product labeling. This
ability will help the Agency identify and respond to emerging issues in
a more timely manner.

    Dated: September 4, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-21532 Filed 9-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: February 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6431-6432]
[DOCID:fr09fe10-113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending January 9, 2010.

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0001.
    Date Filed: January 4, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: January 25, 2010.
    Description: Application of Craig Air Center, Inc. requesting
authority to

operate scheduled passenger service as a commuter air carrier (``the
Statute'').

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations Alternate Federal
Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-2843 Filed 2-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P