Appendix C Measuring Ozone Residual Accurate ozone residual data will allow the calculation of correct log inactivation values and maintain optimized performance. Ozone residual measurements might be inaccurate if sampled or measured incorrectly. Residual measurement Quality Assurance ( QA) issues include:

1. Configuration of the ozone sample collection lines within the contactor, 2. Stability of the indigo trisulfonate reagent when analyzing grab samples, and 3. Standardization and maintenance of on line ozone analyzers.

C. 1 Sample Collection The ozone residual in water decays rapidly. The half life ranges from less than 1 minute to more than 20 minutes. Ozone contactors are sealed vessels with sample lines that penetrate the walls or roof structure of the contactor. The detention times in the sample lines should be as short as possible in order to minimize ozone residual decay ( loss) in the sample lines.

The ozone residual profile in a contactor will vary significantly depending on the method of operation, water quality and water flow conditions ( e. g., HDT). A separate sample port located at the outlet of each chamber within the contactor allows maximum flexibility for sampling ozone residual over variable operating conditions. Sample ports located at the outlets of diffusion chambers should be placed to ensure the diffusers do not interfere with the collected sample.

The inlet to the sample pipe inside the ozone contactor should be located directly in the main flow stream, such as shown in Figure C. 1. The inlet should extend into the contactor sufficiently in order to obtain a representative sample ( i. e. about ¼ to ½ of the contactor width). Gas bubbles might be carried into the sample inlet and cause errors in the residual measurement. A sample inlet tube that is flared and that is turned either upward or opposite the flow of the water ( depending on the location) reduces the potential for entrapment of gas bubbles. However in highly turbid waters, a vertical inlet and flared configuration might result in clogging due to solids deposition inside the line. In these cases a compromise is to position the sample line such that the inlet is horizontal rather than vertical. Figure C. 1 Example Sample Locations in an Over/ Under Baffled Bubble Diffuser Contactor Minimizing the travel time through the sample line is important, especially when the ozone decay rate is high ( i. e., ozone half life is short). It is desirable to minimize the travel time so that the ozone decay is < 10 percent. Figure C. 2 shows the relationship between simulated sample line travel time and ozone residual loss for various ozone half life values. For example, the travel time in the sample line should be less than 10 seconds if the ozone half life is one minute, in order to maintain the ozone residual loss at or below 10 percent. Figure C. 2 Relationship Between Ozone Residual Loss and Detention Time through the Ozone Sample Line for Various Ozone Half Life Values The sample line diameter should be large enough ( minimum 3/ 8th inch inside diameter and preferably ½  in to ¾  inch) to minimize clogging of the line with suspended solids. Sample pipe diameter and flow rate should be selected in order to:

1. Maintain consistent flow without plugging 2. Minimize detention time in the sample line 3. Meet flow rate requirements of an on line analyzer installed at that location Gravity flow is all that is necessary to meet sample flow requirements in most locations. In other cases, pumping is necessary. Sample lines might contain some gas bubbles as well as liquid. It is important to ensure that lines are vented in high spots where gas binding might occur. Gaseous ozone in high concentrations is hazardous to breathe. Sample line vents and drains should be directed away from occupied areas.

Some of these points are touched upon in Section O. 3.2 of Appendix O of the SWTR Guidance Manual ( 1991). C. 2 Ozone Residual Measurement Ozone residual is determined using the Indigo Method ( Standard Methods 4500 Ozone  20th Edition, 1998) when analyzing grab samples. The method assumes that high purity reagents are used. Since the publication of the 20th Edition, several reports ( Gordon et al., 2000a and 2000b; Rakness et al., 2001; Rakness and Hunter, 2001; and Rakness et al., 2002) have been published discussing a potential biasing in the Indigo Method. The potential biasing involves the value of the so called " sensitivity factor", f, as defined in the Standard Method. In short, these reports suggest that the actual sensitivity factor might be lower than the Standard Method's value, and hence the calculated ozone concentration will be undervalued.

The Standard method's proportionality constant, f, ( 0.42 L mg 1cm 1) that is used to calculate the ozone residual is based on an indigo trisulfonate molar absorbance,  , of 20,000 M 1 cm 1. These recent reports suggest that f may not be constant and may depend on:

1. The source and age of the neat indigo trisulfonate solid 2. The age and handling of the indigo stock solution that is prepared as part of the method Briefly, these reports indicate that, due to either of the above aspects, f can be substantially lower than 0.42 L mg 1cm 1. In other words, the molar absorbance can be much lower than 20,000 M 1cm 1. Gordon et al. ( 2000a and 2000b), Rakness et al. ( 2001), Rakness and Hunter ( 2001), and Rakness et al. ( 2002) reported that the apparent molar absorbance of some indigo stock solutions might be as low as 11,000 M 1cm 1, and in an extreme case 6,000 M 1cm 1. The authors suggest that the ramifications of applying an f value of 0.42 L mg 1cm 1 when the solution has a lower true f value are the underestimation of the ozone concentration.

These issues are not completely resolved at the time of the writing of this guidance manual. However, the evidence is suggestive enough to warrant a new recommended QA control concerning the quality of the indigo stock solution. Should changes in the Standard Method be approved prior to issuing the final version of this guidance, those changes will be discussed.

The gravimetric indigo trisulfonate method is fairly easy to apply in the field and is accurate. It should be noted that the method described herein is somewhat different than the 20th Edition of Standard Methods in that the volume of both the blank and the samples are determined gravimetrically. The procedural steps include:

1. Prepare indigo stock solution as described in Standard Methods 2. Prepare Reagent II solution ( for ozone residuals greater than 0.05 mg/ L), as described in Standard Methods. 3. Prepare flasks for sampling.

3.1. Clean, dry and label several 125 mL Erlenmeyer flasks ( enough for each sample plus one blank).

3.2. Obtain the tare weight of each flask.

4. Add 10.0 mL of Reagent II solution to each flask.

5. Add approximately 90 mL of distilled water to one or two flasks and use these flasks as the blank ( i. e., use value from one blank or average of values from two blanks).

6. Collect ozone sample.

6.1. Thoroughly flush sample line to be used.

6.2. Do not run sample down the side of the flask, as this will cause ozone off gassing.

6.3. Fill flask with sample, gently swirling flask until a light blue color remains. Do not bleach completely or the residual value will be incorrect.

7. Wipe dry the outside of sample and blank flasks.

8. Weigh sample and blank flasks.

8.1. Total weight for sample is tare weight of flask plus 10 mL indigo plus added sample.

8.2. Total weight for blank is tare weight of flask plus 10 mL indigo plus added distilled water.

9. Prepare the spectrophotometer for measuring absorbance.

9.1. Identify the cell path length ( e. g., 1 cm, 5 cm, etc.).

9.2. Set the wavelength to 600 nanometers.

10. Measure absorbance of blank and samples within four hours.

10.1. Follow instructions for spectrophotometer concerning zeroing the instrument.

10.2. Record absorbance of each sample and each blank.

11. Complete calculations  see example below.

Example:

A 10 mL aliquot of Reagent II solution was added to a 125 mL Erlenmeyer flask that was used for the blank. The flask had a tare weight of 83.62 g. The final weight of the flask, plus the 10 mL aliquot of reagent, plus the added distilled water was 179.77 g. The total volume of the 10 mL Reagent II aliquot plus added distilled water was determined by subtracting the bottle's tare weight from the total weight, assuming that 1 mL of liquid weighs 1 g ( 96.15 mL = [ 179.77 g  83.62 g] * 1 mL / 1 g).

The spectrophotometer had a path length of 1 cm. The absorbance reading of the gravimetric blank was measured as 0.234 cm 1 at wavelength of 600 nm. This reading must be corrected for the difference in the volume of the blank used in order to check the quality of the reagent. The calculated absorbance of a 1: 100 blank dilution can be determined using Equation C 1. In this case, the 1: 100 absorbance value was 0.225 cm 1, which is greater than or equal to 0.225 cm 1. This means that the indigo trisulfonate solution was considered acceptable.

( C 1)

The 125 mL flask that was used for the ozone sample had a tare weight of 94.10 g. Sample water was directed into the 10 mL of Reagent II solution until a light blue color remained. The final weight of the flask, plus the 10 mL aliquot plus the sample, was 167.39 g. The absorbance reading at a path length of 1 cm was 0.159. The volume of the water sample was 63.29 mL ( 63.29 mL = [ 167.39 g  94.10 g  10 g] * 1 mL / 1 g). The ozone residual was calculated using Equation C 2, which resulted in a value of 0.41 mg/ L.

( C 2) ( )( ) b V f V A  V A = mg/ L S T S B B

where A B = absorbance of the blank ( as measured, not as corrected by equation C 1)

A S = absorbance of the sample V B = volume of the blank plus indigo, mL V T = total volume of the sample plus indigo, mL V S = volume of the sample ( total weight  tare weight  10)

f = 0.42 b = path length of cell, cm C. 3 On line Ozone Residual Analyzer Calibration On line ozone residual analyzers are available that can continuously monitor ozone residual in the water. This makes it possible to automate the disinfection credit calculation using the plant's computer control system. However, the analyzers must be maintained properly and their calibration must be checked periodically so that readings match grab sample results that are based on the indigo trisulfonate procedure. Generally, probe type monitor readings tend to drift downward over time due to weakening of the electrolyte solution. Calibration checks should be conducted regularly, such as at least once per week. This section describes a calibration check protocol which involves collecting grab samples and analyzer readings simultaneously and comparing the values.

The calibration check should consist of collecting at least three, and preferably five, ozone residual grab samples and corresponding analyzer readings. The following calibration protocol has been used successfully at operating ozone facilities.

1. Collect three to five grab sample ozone residuals. Obtain an analyzer reading while the grab sample is being collected. Wait 15 seconds to 30 seconds between each pair of grab sample and analyzer reading.

2. Measure the ozone residual concentration in the grab samples using the indigo trisulfonate method.

3. Calculate the average grab sample ozone residual value and the average analyzer ozone residual value.

4. Compare the average of the on line analyzer to that of the indigo grab samples. The average of the on line analyzer cannot deviate more than 10% or 0.05 mg/ L ( which ever is largest) from the grab sample average. If the average of the on line analyzer deviates more than this, then adjust the meter reading per the manufacturer's instructions. Note that this QA control is two sided. It is especially important that the on line analyzer not record more than 10% or 0.05 mg/ L greater than the grab samples. However, a negative deviation ( negative bias), while not effecting public safety, may also be useful as an indication of a malfunctioning unit.

5. Allow the analyzer to stabilize for a period of 30 minutes after adjusting the meter reading and repeat steps 1 through 4 until the difference calculated in step 4 is < 10% of the grabsample average and < 0.05 mg/ L.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 73916]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: National Air
Tour Safety Standards

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on September 24, 2013, vol. 78, no. 185, page 58597. A final
rule published on February 13, 2007 (72 FR 6883) set safety and
oversight rules for a broad variety of sightseeing and commercial air
tour flights. This final rule improved the overall safety of commercial
air tours by requiring all air tour operators to abide by the safety
provisions found in 14 CFR Part 136.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 8, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0717.
    Title: National Air Tour Safety Standards.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: This final rule set safety and oversight rules for a
broad variety of sightseeing and commercial air tour flights. The FAA
uses the information it collects and reviews to ensure compliance and
adherence to regulations and, if necessary, take enforcement action on
violators of the regulations.
    Respondents: 3,480 pilots and air tour operators.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 30,321 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 2, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-29237 Filed 12-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1833-1837]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00372]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2020-0069]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Notice and Request for
Comment; Consolidated Labeling Requirements and Procedures for
Selecting Lines To Be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a request for reinstatement
of a previously approved information collection.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
invites public comments about our intention to request approval from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a reinstatement of a
previously approved information collection. Before a Federal agency can
collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval
from OMB. Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. On
February 23, 2018, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register
soliciting public comments with a 60-day comment period. NHTSA received
1 public comment that was not relevant to the information collection
request. Given the extended time period since the initial publication
of that notice, NHTSA is publishing this new 60-day notice.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted by March 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the Docket No. NHTSA-
2020-0069, through one of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Go to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> before
coming.

    Instructions: Each submission must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice of proposed collection of information.
Note all comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12-140 on the ground level of the DOT Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> before
coming.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Ms. Carlita Ballard, International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs (NRM-310),<PHONE_NUMBER>,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W43-439, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Please
identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB
Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document describes a collection of
information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval titled,
Consolidated Labeling Requirements for 49 CFR part 541 and Procedures
for Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard for
49 CFR part 542.
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits
a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first
publish a document in the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment
period and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected
agencies concerning each proposed collection of information. The OMB
has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a
document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must
ask for public comment on the following: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) how to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (d) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques,
or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collections of information for which
the agency is seeking approval from OMB.
    Title: Consolidated Labeling Requirements for 49 CFR part 541 and
Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention
Standard for 49 CFR part 542.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0539.
    Form Number(s): N/A.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement of a previously approved information
collection.
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information:
    NHTSA is seeking approval from OMB for four information collections
in the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. In 1984,
Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act (The Theft
Act) directing NHTSA to issue a theft prevention standard requiring
vehicle manufacturers to mark the major parts of high-theft lines of
passenger motor vehicles. (Pub. L. 98-547.) In 1992, Congress enacted
the Anti Car Theft Act (Pub. L. 102-519, codified at 49 U.S.C. Chapter
331), which expanded the parts-marking requirement to include
multipurpose passenger vehicles and certain light duty trucks. In a
final rule published on April 6, 2004 (69 FR 17960), the Federal Motor
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard was extended to include all passenger
cars and, multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less, all light-duty trucks (LDTs)
determined to be high-theft (with a gross vehicle weight rating of
6,000 pounds or less) and all low-theft LDTs with major parts that are
interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of those
passenger motor vehicle lines subject to the theft prevention standard.
The four information collections are: (1) The requirement to mark major
parts of covered motor vehicles; (2) the requirement to submit to NHTSA
target areas showing where the parts will be marked; (3) the
requirement for manufacturers of new LDT lines to submit information to
NHTSA to allow the agency to determine whether the LDT line will be
required to comply with the parts-marking requirements because it is
likely to be a high theft line; and (4) the requirement for
manufacturers of new LDT lines to submit information to NHTSA to allow
the agency to determine the LDT will be required to comply with the
parts-marking requirements because it contains major parts that are
interchangeable with the majority of the covered major parts of
passenger motor vehicles covered by the standard. Each of the
information collections are describe in more detail below.
    49 CFR Part 541--Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard:
The Theft Act requires specified parts of high-theft vehicles to be
marked with vehicle identification numbers (parts-marking). Part 541
specifies performance requirements for identifying numbers or symbols
to be placed on major parts of certain passenger motor vehicles to
reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts through tracing and
recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. All passenger cars and
multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of
6,000 pounds or less, and light duty trucks with major parts that are
interchangeable with the majority of the covered major parts of
passenger motor vehicles covered by the standard are required to be
parts-marked. Each major component part must be either labeled or
affixed with the VIN and its replacement component part must be marked
with the ``DOT'' symbol, the letter ``R'' and the manufacturers' logo.
For each vehicle line, manufacturers must inform NHTSA of the location
of the VIN marking on each part (target area) and the location of the
VIN marking for the replacement part. This information is publicly
available to aid law enforcement personnel in tracing stolen vehicles
and their parts.
    49 CFR Part 542--Procedures for Selecting Light Duty Truck Lines to
be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard: Manufacturers of light
duty trucks must identify new model

introductions that are likely to be high-theft vehicle lines as defined
in 49 U.S.C. 33104. The specific vehicle lines are to be selected by
agreement between the manufacturer and the agency. NHTSA's procedures
for selecting high-theft vehicle lines are contained in 49 CFR part
542. Manufacturers use the criteria in Appendix C of Part 541 to
evaluate new lines and determine whether the new line is likely to be
high theft. Next, the manufacturers submit their evaluations and
conclusions, together with the underlying factual information, to NHTSA
at least 15 months before introduction of the vehicle line into U.S.
commerce.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information

    49 CFR part 541: The identification of major parts of high theft
motor vehicle lines is designed to decrease automobile theft by making
it more difficult for criminals to ``chop'' vehicles into component
parts and then fence such parts. The information would aid law
enforcement officials at all levels of Government in the investigation
of ``chop shops'' by creating evidence for prosecution of the operators
for possession of stolen motor vehicle parts. Officials have great
difficulty in establishing that particular parts in the possession of a
``chop shop'' are in fact stolen when the parts are not marked.
Operators of both ``chop shops'' and auto body repair shops would avoid
possession of parts bearing identification that links the parts to a
stolen vehicle. Also, stolen parts, when recovered, could not easily be
traced back to the proper owner and returned to the owner or insurer if
the parts were not marked. Congress intended for major parts
identification to decrease the market for stolen parts and, therefore,
decrease the incentive for motor vehicle theft.
    49 CFR part 542: Manufacturers of light duty trucks must identify
new model introductions that are likely to be high-theft vehicle lines
as defined in 49 U.S.C. 33104. Because the specific vehicle lines are
to be selected by agreement between the manufacturer and NHTSA, the
agency could not perform its statutory requirement without the
information provided by the manufacturers.
    Affected Public: Vehicle manufacturers.
    This information collections affects manufacturers of passenger
cars, MPVs, and trucks that are subject to the requirements in Part
541. It also affects the manufacturers of LDTs that must submit
information to NHTSA to allow the agency to determine whether new LDTs
must comply with the parts-marking requirements.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 21.
    Based on current information, the agency estimates that there are,
on average, 21 unique respondents to the four information collections
in parts 541 and 542. Further, NHTSA estimates that there are
approximately 21 manufacturers that are required to comply with the
parts marking requirements of part 541 each year and submit information
on target areas to NHTSA. For the information collections contained in
part 542, NHTSA estimates that there are currently 7 manufacturers of
LDTs that could be subject to the parts-marking requirements. However,
these manufacturers are not required to submit information every year.
Instead, these manufacturers would only need to submit information
under part 542 before they introduce a new LDT line. Because NHTSA
estimates that it will only receive one submission under section 542.1
and one submission under section 542.2 in each of the next three years,
NHTSA estimates there will only be one respondent to these information
collections annually.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Manufacturers comply with the parts-marking requirements when they
manufacture new vehicles. Manufacturers submit new target area
information when they introduce new vehicle lines or make changes to
existing vehicle lines that require changes to where parts are marked.
Manufacturers only submit information under part 542 when they
introduce new LDT lines.
    Number of Responses: For the four information collections in part
541 and part 542, NHTSA estimates the annual number of responses as
follows: (1) 4.5 million for the parts-marking requirement; (2) 23 for
submissions of target area information; (3) 1 for reporting on whether
a LDT line is likely to be high-theft; and (4) 1 for reporting on
whether a LDT line shares interchangeable parts with a high theft line
subject to the parts-marking requirements.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 150,550.
    49 CFR part 541. Current information indicates there has been a
gradual increase in new vehicle manufacturer mergers, granting of
parts-marking exemptions (49 CFR part 543) and vehicle design stability
which have resulted in decreased production of vehicles requiring
parts-marking. The agency estimates that, based on the most currently
available data, there has been a decrease in the production of vehicles
requiring parts-marking from 8 million vehicles to approximately 4.5
million for all manufacturers. To calculate the burden associated with
the parts marking requirement, NHTSA assumes that manufacturers will
use the least burdensome method for complying with the requirement,
based on historical practice and the agency's current understanding of
how manufacturers fit labeling into the vehicle assembly line. For the
antitheft requirement, the cost of labeling the major parts (i.e., a
paper label with the VIN is placed on each major part) is less than the
cost of stamping the VIN on each major part with a stamping machine.
    To meet the Theft Prevention Standard, the agency estimates that
the time to number and affix the average of 14 labels to each vehicle
is approximately 2 minutes. If 4.5 million vehicles are covered, the
hourly burden for labeling 4.5 million motor vehicles would be 150,000
hours (4.5 million cars x 2 minutes per car / 60 minutes in an hour).
    The agency estimates that the time to stamp both the engine and
transmission will take approximately 1 minute. If 4.5 million vehicles
are covered, the total burden for stamping is estimated to total 75,000
hours (4.5 million cars x 1 minute per car / 60 minutes in an hour).
Please note that in this analysis each vehicle would either have its
major parts labeled or stamped, but not both. We will use the highest
hour number in the hour burden estimate.
    Each manufacturer of vehicles that are required to be parts-marked
must submit reports of the target area locations for the labels or
stamping. The target area designated for a part on a vehicle line shall
be maintained for the duration of the production of the vehicle line,
unless a restyling of the part makes it no longer practicable to mark
within the original target area. If there is such a restyling, the
vehicle manufacturer shall inform NHTSA of that fact and provide a new
target area submission.
    NHTSA estimates that approximately 70 target area responses will be
submitted to the agency in the next three years, or approximately 23
submissions each year. This estimate is based on the number of the
submissions over the three-year period for MYs 2014-2016. Specifically,
18, 29 and 23 target areas were submitted for MYs 2014, 2015 and 2016,
respectively. Due to the decreased production of vehicles requiring
parts-marking, the agency estimates on an average, there will be a
total of 23 target areas submitted by approximately 21 manufacturers.
The

average time to prepare and submit the target areas will be 20 hours
for each submission. The burden hour for submissions will be 460 hours
(23 submissions x 20 hours).
    NHTSA estimates the labor cost associated with this collection of
information by (1) applying the appropriate average hourly labor rate
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), (2) dividing by
0.704 \1\ (70.4%), for private industry workers to obtain the total
cost of compensation, and (3) multiplying by the estimated burden hours
for each respondent type. NHTSA estimates the labor costs associated
with preparing and affixing labels to 14 major parts under Sec.
541.5(a) using the average wage for manufacturers and assemblers in the
motor vehicle manufacturing industry (Standard Occupational
Classification #51-2000), which BLS estimates to be $23.18 \2\ per
hour. Using this estimate, NHTSA estimates the total compensation costs
per hour to be $32.93 per hour ($23.18 per hour / 0.704). The labor
cost per vehicle is estimated to be $1.10 ($32.93 x 2 minutes/60), and
the total labor cost for preparing and affixing labels to the estimated
4.5 million vehicles each year is estimated to be $4,950,000 ($1.10 x
4.5 million vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Table 1. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by
ownership (Mar. 2021), available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm (accessed August 31, 2021).
    \2\ May 2020 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment
and Wage Estimates, NAICS 336100--Motor Vehicle Manufacturing,
Assemblers and Fabricators, Occupation Code 51-2000, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (accessed August 31, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA estimates the labor costs associated with developing and
submitting reports of the target area locations for labels or stamping
under Sec.  541.5(e) using the average wage for compliance officers in
the motor vehicle manufacturing industry (Standard Occupational
Classification #13-1041), which BLS estimates to be $42.30 \3\ per
hour. Using this estimate, NHTSA estimates the total compensation costs
per hour to be $60.09 per hour ($42.30 per hour / 0.704). The labor
cost to prepare each report submitted under Sec.  541.5(e) is estimated
to be $1,201.80 ($60.09 x 20 hours per submission), and the total labor
cost for the estimated 23 target area reports that will be submitted
each year is estimated to be $27,641 ($1,201.80 x 23 reports, rounded).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ May 2020 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment
and Wage Estimates, NAICS 336100--Motor Vehicle Manufacturing,
Compliance Officer, Occupation Code 13-1041, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (accessed August 31, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that Part 541 will impose an annual reporting burden of
150,460 burden-hours, and the total estimated labor costs associated
with these burden hours endured by the responding manufacturers are
$4,977,641 ($4,950,000 + $27,641).
    49 CFR part 542. Currently there are seven manufacturers who
produce LDTs that could be subject to the parts-marking requirements.
While NHTSA estimates that all seven are still active in the U.S.
market, only manufacturers that introduce new LDT lines would be
required to report to NHTSA under 49 CFR 542.1 and 49 CFR 542.2. On
average, NHTSA estimates that approximately that one LDT line will be
introduced each year for which the manufacturer will need to submit
information under Sec.  542.1 and one LDT line will be introduced for
which the manufacturer will need to submit information under Sec.
541.2.
    Section 542.1 specifies procedures for motor vehicle manufacturers
and the agency to follow in the determination of new LDT lines that are
likely to have a theft rate above or below the median theft rate of
3.5826. This section also provides the manufacturers with notice of
their rights and responsibilities during the selection and appeals
process. On average, NHTSA estimates that there will be approximately
one manufacturer submittal a year. NHTSA further estimates that the
burden for each Sec.  542.1 submittal is approximately 45 hours.
Therefore, the total annual burden for Sec.  542.1 submittals is
estimated to be 45 hours.
    Section 542.2 specifies procedures for motor vehicle manufacturers
and NHTSA to follow in the determination of new LTD lines that will
likely have a low theft rate and have major parts interchangeable with
a majority of the major parts of a passenger motor vehicle line subject
to the parts-marking requirements. This section also provides the
manufacturers with notice of their rights and responsibilities during
the selection and appeal process. On average, NHTSA estimates that
there will be approximately one manufacturer submittal a year. NHTSA
further estimates that the burden for each Sec.  542.2 submittal is
approximately 45 hours. Therefore, the total annual burden for Sec.
542.2 submittals is estimated to be 45 hours.
    NHTSA estimates the labor cost associated with this collection of
information by (1) applying the appropriate average hourly labor rate
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), (2) dividing by
0.704 \4\ (70.4%), for private industry workers to obtain the total
cost of compensation, and (3) multiplying by the estimated burden hours
for each respondent type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Table 1. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by
ownership (Mar. 2021), available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm (accessed August 31, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 below provides a summary of the estimated burden hours and
Table 2 provides a summary of the labor costs associated with the
burden hours.

                                               Table 1--Total Estimated Burden Hours for Parts 541 and 542
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Estimated
        IC No.                   ICR title                 Type of IC         number of     Estimated number of     Estimated time per     Total burden
                                                                             respondents         responses               response              hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................  541: Parts-Marking on 14      Third-Party Disclosure           21  4.5 million...........  2 minutes.............         150,000
                        major parts (49 CFR
                        541.5(a)).
2....................  541: Reporting of Target      Reporting.............           21  23....................  20 hours..............             460
                        Areas to NHTSA.
3....................  542: Submissions for          Reporting.............            1  1.....................  45 hours..............              45
                        Determination of whether
                        LDT Line is High Theft.
4....................  542: Submission for           Reporting.............            1  1.....................  45 hours..............              45
                        Determination of whether
                        LDT line Shares
                        Interchangeable Parts with
                        High Theft Line.
                      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total............  ............................  ......................  ...........  ......................  ......................         150,550
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                     Table 2--Estimated Labor Costs for Burden Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Labor cost                                   Labor cost per   Total burden   Total labor
          ICR No.                       ICR title                per hour          Time per response            response          hours          cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................  541: Parts-Marking on 14 major          $32.93  2 minutes......................           $1.10         150,000   $4,950,000
                             parts (49 CFR 541.5(a).
2.........................  541: Reporting of Target Areas to        60.09  20 hours.......................        1,201.80             460    27,641.40
                             NHTSA.                                                                                27,641
3.........................  542: Submissions for                     60.09  45 hours.......................        2,704.05              45     2,704.05
                             Determination of whether LDT                                                                                2,704
                             Line is High Theft.
4.........................  542: Submission for Determination        60.09  45 hours.......................        2,704.05              45     2,704.05
                             of whether LDT line Shares                                                                                2,704
                             Interchangeable Parts with High
                             Theft Line.
                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................  .................................  ...........  ...............................  ..............         150,550    4,983,049
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Cost Burden: $24,003,000.
    49 CFR part 541: NHTSA assumes that most manufacturers will use the
less expensive method of labeling the major parts on vehicles, and not
stamp the VINs onto major parts, based on historical practice and the
agency's current understanding of how manufacturers fit labeling into
the vehicle assembly line. The cost of this collection of information
will comprise of printing costs for the labels affixed to the vehicle
parts. NHTSA estimates that the average cost to print each label is
$0.381. There are an average 14 parts per vehicle to label; therefore,
the printing cost per vehicle is $5.33. At present, the agency
estimates that 4.5 million motor vehicles annually must have their
major parts marked. The total annual costs are estimated to be
$24,003,000 for label identifiers ($5.33 x 4.5 million vehicles).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Number of parts labeled per   Printing cost per    Total printing    Number of vehicles  per   Total estimated
           vehicle                   label        cost  per vehicle            year              printing cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14...........................             $0.381              $5.33  4.5 million.............        $24,003,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Target area submissions require no additional costs to the
respondents above and beyond the labor costs.
    49 CFR parts 542: NHTSA estimates that meeting Part 542 involves no
additional costs to the respondents above and beyond the labor costs.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. The agency will summarize and/or
include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this
information collection.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2022-00372 Filed 1-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: February 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 30)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8193-8194]
[DOCID:fr13fe08-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0062 Formerly CGD11-08-002]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Sacramento River, Sacramento,
CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Tower Drawbridge across the Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento,
CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the public to cross the bridge
to participate in the scheduled Tour of California Bicycle Race, a
community event. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the
closed-to-navigation position during the race.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 1:45 p.m. through 2:45 p.m. on
February 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Materials referred to in this document are available for
inspection or copying at Commander (dpw), Eleventh Coast Guard
District, Building 50-2, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA 94501-5100,
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Eleventh Coast
Guard District maintains the public docket for this temporary
deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The California Department of Transportation
requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge,
mile 59.0, over the Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The Tower
Drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet
above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw
opens on signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5. Navigation on the waterway
is commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
1:45 p.m. through 2:45 p.m. on February 19, 2008 to allow participants
in the Tour of California Bicycle Race to cross the bridge during the
event. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway
users. There are no scheduled river boat cruises or anticipated levee
maintenance during this deviation period. No objections to the
temporary deviation were raised.
    Vessels that can transit the bridge, while in the closed-to-
navigation position, may continue to do so at any time.
    In the event of an emergency the drawspan can be opened with 30
minutes advance notice.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 29, 2008.
C.E. Bone,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E8-2689 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


8/ 126/ 05 RFP   special treatment response Response: We are willing to work with individual areas as they develop their 8 hour 15 percent plans and to help them avoid unnecessary planning burdens. We believe that the portion of an 8 hour area not subject to an approved 1 hour 15 percent plan may be able to meet the 15 percent obligation for the 8 hour standard if the area adopts the same VOC control measures ( for example, VOC RACT at the same source thresholds, Stage II, I/ M, etc...) as in the portion of the 8 hour nonattainment area subject to a 15 percent plan for the 1 hour standard and if the area has the same mix of emissions sources ( point with similar industrial mix/ area/ mobile) as in the area subject to the 15 percent plan for the 1 hour standard. EPA could propose approval of a SIP on this basis where supported by the record.


[Federal Register: August 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 47495-47496]
[DOCID:fr17au06-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12667-001]

City of Hamilton, OH; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

August 10, 2006.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 12667-001.
    c. Dated Filed: June 12, 2006.
    d. Submitted By: City of Hamilton, Ohio.
    e. Name of Project: Meldahl Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located on the Ohio River in
Bracken County, Kentucky. The existing dam is owned and operated by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The project would occupy United
States lands administered by the Corps.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Mr. Michael Perry, Director of
Electric, City of Hamilton, Ohio, 345 High Street, Hamilton, OH 45011,
(513) 785-7229.
    i. FERC Contact: Peter Leitzke at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. The City of Hamilton, Ohio, filed its Notice of Intent to File
License Application using the Traditional Licensing Process on June 12,
2006. With this notice, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects
approves City of Hamilton, Ohio's request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under
section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and implementing

regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c) the Kentucky State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by Section 106, National Historical
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating the City of Hamilton, Ohio,
as the Commission's non-Federal representative for carrying out
informal consultation, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act, Section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
    m. The City of Hamilton, Ohio, filed a Pre-Application Document
(PAD) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's
regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket

number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, of for TTY,

(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified

via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-13538 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                         EPA Conference Call with API
                                 May 23, 2012

EPA staff  met with American Petroleum Institute (API) staff and its members to discuss their comments on the proposed changes to the UST regulations.  Topics discussed included: wastewater treatment tanks, interstitial integrity testing, walkthroughs, and compatibility.

Attendees:
EPA  -  Liz McDermott, Mark Barolo, Carolyn Hoskinson, Linda Gerber, Tim Smith, Tim Roberts, Erin Knighton, Cho Yi Kwan, Paul Miller. Andrea Barbery

API  -  Prentiss Searles, Brian Knapp
BP  -  Dennis Boyd
ExxonMobil  -  Darin Knowlton
Marathon  -  Jason Rosecrans, Michelle McKee
Hess  -  Jim Howard


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58506-58507]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24284]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0711; FRL-8889-9]

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, EPA gives
notice that a public meeting of the Pesticide Program Dialogue
Committee (PPDC) is scheduled for October 12-13, 2011. A draft agenda
is under development and will be posted by September 26, 2011. Four
PPDC workgroup meetings are also scheduled for October 11, 2011:
Integrated Pest Management, Comparative Safety Statements, Pollinator
Protection, and the 21st Century Toxicology/Integrated Testing
Strategies Workgroup's Workshop on Diagnostic Tools and Biomarkers in
Pesticide Medical Management, Exposure Surveillance, and Epidemiologic
Research. The PPDC Public Health Work Group is planning to meet on
October 13, 2011, following the PPDC meeting. All meetings are free,
open to the public, and no advance registration is required.

DATES: The PPDC meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 12, 2011,
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Thursday, October 13, 2011, from 9 a.m. to
noon. On Tuesday, October 11, 2011, Workgroup meeting schedules are as
follows: Integrated Pest Management from 8 a.m. to noon; Comparative
Safety Statements from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.; Pollinator Protection from 1
p.m. to 5 p.m.; and 21st Century Toxicology/Integrated Testing
Strategies Workshop from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. On Thursday, October 13,
the PPDC Public Health Work Group will meet from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Information regarding PPDC

Workgroups is available on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The PPDC and Workgroup meetings will be held at EPA's
location at 1 Potomac Yard South, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA.
The PPDC meeting will be held in the lobby-level Conference Center, as
will the 21st Century Toxicology/Integrated Testing Strategies
Workgroup's Workshop. The Integrated Pest Management and Pollinator
Protection Workgroup meetings will be held in room S-4370, and the
Comparative Safety Statements Workgroup meeting will be held in room N-
4830. The Public Health Workgroup meeting will be held in room N-4830.
EPA's Potomac Yard South building is approximately one mile from the
Crystal City Metro Station.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margie Fehrenbach, Office of Pesticide
Programs (7501P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to persons who work in agricultural settings or
persons who are concerned about implementation of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA); the amendments to FIFRA and FFDCA by
the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996; the Pesticide
Registration Improvement Act; and the Endangered Species Act.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
Agricultural workers and farmers; pesticide industry and trade
associations; environmental, consumer, and farmworker groups; animal
welfare organizations; pesticide users and growers; pest consultants;
State, local and Tribal governments; academia; public health
organizations; food processors; and the public. If you have 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?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0771. Publicly available docket materials are available
either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if
only available in hard copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.
    A draft agenda is being developed and will be posted by September
26, 2011, on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ppdc/.

II. Background

    EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) is entrusted with the
responsibility to help ensure the safety of the American food supply,
the education and protection from unreasonable risk of those who apply
or are exposed to pesticides occupationally or through use of products,
and general protection of the environment and special ecosystems from
potential risks posed by pesticides.
    The Charter for EPA's Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC)
was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public
Law 92-463, in September 1995, and has been renewed every 2 years since
that time. PPDC's Charter was renewed October 30, 2009, for another 2-
year period. The purpose of PPDC is to provide advice and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on issues associated with
pesticide regulatory development and reform initiatives, evolving
public policy and program implementation issues, and science issues
associated with evaluating and reducing risks from use of pesticides.
It is determined that PPDC is in the public interest in connection with
the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by law. The following
sectors are represented on the PPDC: Pesticide industry and trade
associations; environmental/public interest, consumer, and animal
rights groups; farm worker organizations; pesticide user, grower, and
commodity groups; Federal and State/local/Tribal governments; the
general public; academia; and public health organizations.
    Copies of the PPDC Charter are filed with appropriate committees of
Congress and the Library of Congress and are available upon request.

III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    PPDC meetings are open to the public and seating is available on a
first-come basis. Persons interested in attending do not need to
register in advance of the meeting. Comments may be made during the
public comment session of each meeting or in writing to the address
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural workers, Agriculture,
Chemicals, Endangered species, Foods, Integrated Pest Management,
Pesticide labels, Pesticides and pests, Pollinator protection, Public
health, 21st Century toxicology.

    Dated: September 15, 2011.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-24284 Filed 9-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 56638]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22546]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-1015-000.
    Applicants: WTG Hugoton, LP.
    Description: WTGH Address Change Filing to be effective 10/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20120904-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 9/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-1016-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Antero to Vanguard Permanent Capacity Releases on Neg
Rate Agmts to be effective 9/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20120904-5023.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 9/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-1017-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts Filing--Vanguard Permian to
Tenaska to be effective 9/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20120904-5024.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 9/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-1019-000.
    Applicants: Southern LNG Company, L.L.C.
    Description: ACA Surcharge--SLNG 3 Service to be effective 10/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 9/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20120904-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 9/17/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-1020-000.
    Applicants: Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Revised System Maps to be effective 9/5/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/4/12.
    Accession Number: 20120904-5298.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 9/17/12.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-88-006.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: RP12-88 Final Tariff Records Rate Case (09-05-12) to
be effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 9/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120905-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 9/17/12.
    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: September 6, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22546 Filed 9-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P