[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40164-40165]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14373]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-0071; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-1]

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace Orlando, FL; and
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Gainesville, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Airspace at Gainesville Regional
Airport, Gainesville, FL; and Orlando Executive Airport, Orlando, FL,
by eliminating the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part time status of the
Class E airspace designated as an extension at each airport. This is an
administrative change to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action also updates the geographic coordinates of Orlando
Executive Airport in existing Class D and E airspace.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 15, 2016. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

    In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the airspace description
for Gainesville Regional Airport, Gainesville, FL, and Orlando
Executive Airport, Orlando, FL, as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not match the FAA's
charting information. This is an administrative change to coincide with
the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z
dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by eliminating the NOTAM information that reads ``This Class E
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and time
established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time
will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory'' from the regulatory text of the Class E airspace designated
as an extension to Class D, at Gainesville Regional Airport,
Gainesville, FL; and Orlando Executive Airport, Orlando, FL.
    This is an administrative change amending the description for the
above Florida airports, to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical
database, and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements
of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) are unnecessary. The geographic coordinates of Orlando Executive
Airport are adjusted under Class D and Class E airspace, to coincide
with the FAAs aeronautical database.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL D Orlando, FL [Amended]

Orlando Executive Airport, FL
    (Lat. 28[deg]32'44'' N., long. 81[deg]19'59'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface, to but not
including 1,600 feet MSL, within a 4.2-mile radius of Orlando
Executive Airport, excluding that portion within the Orlando, FL,
Class B airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective
during the specific dates and times established in advance by a
Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL E2 Orlando, FL [Amended]

Orlando Executive Airport, FL
    (Lat. 28[deg]32'44'' N., long. 81[deg]19'59'' W.)

    Within a 4.2-mile radius of Orlando Executive Airport excluding
that portion within the Orlando, FL Class B airspace area.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a
Class D Surface Area.

* * * * *

ASO FL E4 Gainesville, FL [Amended]

Gainesville Regional Airport, FL
    (Lat. 29[deg]41'24'' N., long. 82[deg]16'18'' W.)
Gators VORTAC
    (Lat. 29[deg]41'32'' N., long. 82[deg]16'23'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.4 miles
each side of the Gators VORTAC 53[deg] radial, extending from the
4.9-mile radius of Gainesville Regional Airport to 7 miles northeast
of the VORTAC.
* * * * *

ASO FL E4 Orlando, FL [Amended]

Orlando Executive Airport, FL
    (Lat. 28[deg]32'44'' N., long. 81[deg]19'59'' W.)
Orlando VORTAC
    (Lat. 28[deg]32'34'' N., long. 81[deg]20'06'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.6 miles
each side of the Orlando VORTAC 254[deg] radial extending from the
4.2-mile radius of Orlando Executive Airport, to 8.1 miles west of
the Orlando VORTAC; excluding that portion within the Orlando, FL,
Class B airspace area.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 8, 2016.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2016-14373 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


4 BROMOPHENYL PHENYL ETHER, NG/ UL4 UL Episode 6000 Data Page 26 of 32 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2,4 DICHLOROPHENOL, NG/ UL2,4 UL 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2,4 DINITROTOLUENE, NG/ UL2,4 UL 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2 CHLOROPHENOL, NG/ UL2 UL 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 3,3' DICHLOROBENZIDINE, NG/ UL3,3' UL Mon Mar 18 16: 09: 39 2002 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 3 2 1 0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.2 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2,4 DIMETHYLPHENOL, NG/ UL2,4 UL 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2,4 DINITROPHENOL, NG/ UL2,4 UL 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2 CHLORONAPHTHALENE, NG/ UL2 UL 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2 PICOLINE, NG/ UL2 UL 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 4 CHLORO 3 METHYLPHENOL, NG/ UL4 UL Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd1. s Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2,6 DINITROTOLUENE, NG/ UL2,6 UL Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 2 NITROPHENOL, NG/ UL2 UL Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 Observed Standard Deviation 4 CHLOROPHENYLPHENYL ETHER, NG/ UL4 UL Episode 6000 Data Page 27 of 32 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 ACENAPHTHYLENE, NG/ ULACENAPHTHYLENE, UL 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BENZIDINE, NG/ ULBENZIDINE, UL 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BENZO( B) FLUORANTHENE, NG/ ULBENZO( UL Mon Mar 18 16: 09: 54 2002 1.4 8 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 4 NITROPHENOL, NG/ UL4 UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 ALPHA TERPINEOL, NG/ ULALPHA UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BENZO( A) ANTHRACENE, NG/ ULBENZO( UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BENZO( GHI) PERYLENE, NG/ ULBENZO( UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Spike Concentration 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 6 4 2 0 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 ACENAPHTHENE, NG/ ULACENAPHTHENE, UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd1. s Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 ANTHRACENE, NG/ ULANTHRACENE, UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BENZO( A) PYRENE, NG/ ULBENZO( UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BENZO( K) FLUORANTHENE, NG/ ULBENZO( UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 6 4 2 0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 5 4 3 2 1 0 3 2 1 0 Observed Standard Deviation BIS( 2 ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE, NG/ ULBIS( UL Episode 6000 Data Page 28 of 32 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

15 10 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BETA NAPHTHYLAMINE, NG/ ULBETA UL 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BIS( 2 CHLOROETHYL) ETHER, NG/ ULBIS( UL 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE, NG/ ULBUTYL UL 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DI N BUTYL PHTHALATE, NG/ ULDI UL Mon Mar 18 16: 10: 07 2002 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 2 1 0 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BIPHENYL, NG/ ULBIPHENYL, UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BIS( 2 CHLOROISOPROPYL) ETHER, NG/ ULBIS( UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 CARBAZOLE, NG/ ULCARBAZOLE, UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DI N OCTYL PHTHALATE, NG/ ULDI UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Spike Concentration 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 10 8 6 4 2 0 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 BIS( 2 CHLOROETHOXY) METHANE, NG/ ULBIS( UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd1. s Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 CHRYSENE, NG/ ULCHRYSENE, UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DI N PROPYLNITROSAMINE, NG/ ULDI UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Observed Standard Deviation HEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE, NG/ ULHEXACHLOROCYCLOPENTADIENE, UL Episode 6000 Data Page 29 of 32 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DIBENZO( A, H) ANTHRACENE, NG/ ULDIBENZO( UL 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DIETHYL PHTHALATE, NG/ ULDIETHYL UL 8 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DIPHENYLAMINE, NG/ ULDIPHENYLAMINE, UL 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 HEXACHLOROBENZENE, NG/ ULHEXACHLOROBENZENE, UL Mon Mar 18 16: 10: 21 2002 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DIBENZOFURAN, NG/ ULDIBENZOFURAN, UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DIMETHYL PHTHALATE, NG/ ULDIMETHYL UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 FLUORANTHENE, NG/ ULFLUORANTHENE, UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE, NG/ ULHEXACHLOROBUTADIENE, UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Spike Concentration Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DIBENZOTHIOPHENE, NG/ ULDIBENZOTHIOPHENE, UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd1. s Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 DIPHENYL ETHER, NG/ ULDIPHENYL UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 FLUORENE, NG/ ULFLUORENE, UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 0 20 40 60 80 100 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 8 6 4 2 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 Observed Standard Deviation Episode 6000 Data Page 30 of 32 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 HEXACHLOROETHANE, NG/ ULHEXACHLOROETHANE, UL 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N DECANE, NG/ ULN UL 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N EICOSANE, NG/ ULN UL 8 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE, NG/ ULN UL Mon Mar 18 16: 10: 35 2002 20 15 10 5 0 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 15 10 5 0 4 3 2 1 0 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 INDENO( 1,2,3 CD) PYRENE, NG/ ULINDENO( UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N DOCOSANE, NG/ ULN UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N HEXACOSANE, NG/ ULN UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N NITROSODIPHENYLAMINE, NG/ ULN UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Spike Concentration 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 5 4 3 2 1 0 15 10 5 0 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 ISOPHORONE, NG/ ULISOPHORONE, UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd1. s Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N DODECANE, NG/ ULN UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N HEXADECANE, NG/ ULN UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N OCTACOSANE, NG/ ULN UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Observed Standard Deviation PHENOL, 2 METHYL 4,6 DINITRO, NG/ ULPHENOL, UL Episode 6000 Data Page 31 of 32 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

8 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N OCTADECANE, NG/ ULN UL 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N TRIACONTANE, NG/ ULN UL 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 P CYMENE, NG/ ULP UL 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 PHENOL, NG/ ULPHENOL, UL Mon Mar 18 16: 10: 49 2002 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 4 3 2 1 0 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N TETRACOSANE, NG/ ULN UL 4 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 3 2 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Spike Concentration Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 NAPHTHALENE, NG/ ULNAPHTHALENE, UL Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 PENTACHLOROPHENOL, NG/ ULPENTACHLOROPHENOL, UL Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 N TETRADECANE, NG/ ULN UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd1. s Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 NITROBENZENE, NG/ ULNITROBENZENE, UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 PHENANTHRENE, NG/ ULPHENANTHRENE, UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 PYRENE, NG/ ULPYRENE, UL 0 20 40 60 80 100 Observed Standard Deviation Episode 6000 Data Page 32 of 32 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale) 2.5 2.0 1.5 Organics, Method 1625: T= 1000Organics, 1000 STYRENE, NG/ ULSTYRENE, UL 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Observed Standard Deviation Mon Mar 18 16: 11: 03 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req004/ r004sd1. s Observed Standard DeviationAAMA Metals Data APPENDIX B  3  2 Page 1 of 13 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

Lab: 1Lab: 1 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 100 20 Lab: 3Lab: 3 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 90 11 18 16 80 10 14 70 9 12 60 Lab: 2Lab: 2 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 8 10 50 35 24 300 22 Lab: 5Lab: 5 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 30 290 Lab: 4Lab: 4 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 20 25 18 280 16 20 270 14 12 15 260 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 Lab: 6Lab: 6 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L 60 70 170 60 160 55 50 150 40 140 50 30 130 45 20 120 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 Lab: 8Lab: 8 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L Lab: 9Lab: 9 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L Lab: 7Lab: 7 ALUMINUM, UG/ LALUMINUM, L Spike Concentration Observed Standard DeviationAAMA Metals Data Page 2 of 13 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

Lab: 1Lab: 1 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L 9 70 Lab: 3Lab: 3 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 16 8 60 14 7 12 50 6 5 10 40 Lab: 2Lab: 2 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L 4 8 30 3 Lab: 6Lab: 6 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L45 8 11 40 10 35 6 9 30 4 8 25 20 Lab: 4Lab: 4 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L 2 Lab: 5Lab: 5 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L 7 15 6 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 45 40 Lab: 7Lab: 7 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L Lab: 8Lab: 8 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L 30 20 35 Lab: 9Lab: 9 ARSENIC, UG/ LARSENIC, L 15 25 30 25 10 20 20 5 15 15 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Wed Mar 20 13: 32: 21 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Observed Standard DeviationAAMA Metals Data Page 3 of 13 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

Lab: 1Lab: 1 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 6 Lab: 2Lab: 2 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 2.0 4 5 1.5 3 1.0 4 2 0.5 3 1 Lab: 3Lab: 3 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 2.0 12 4 1.5 10 3 8 Lab: 4Lab: 4 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 1.0 2 6 0.5 Lab: 5Lab: 5 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 1 Lab: 6Lab: 6 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 53.5 Lab: 7Lab: 7 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L Lab: 8Lab: 8 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 5 3.0 4 4 2.5 3 3 2.0 2 1.5 2 1 1.0 1 Lab: 9Lab: 9 CADMIUM, UG/

LCADMIUM, L 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 Wed Mar 20 13: 32: 23 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Observed Standard DeviationAAMA Metals Data Page 4 of 13 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

9.0 8.5 12 5 8.0 10 4 7.5 8 3 7.0 6 2 6.5 4 1 6.0 2 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Lab: 2Lab: 2 CHROMIUM, UG/ LCHROMIUM, L Lab: 3Lab: 3 CHROMIUM, UG/ LCHROMIUM, L Lab: 1Lab: 1 CHROMIUM, UG/ LCHROMIUM, L 18 5 16 Lab: 4Lab: 4 CHROMIUM, UG/ LCHROMIUM, L 6 14 Lab: 5Lab: 5 CHROMIUM, UG/ LCHROMIUM, L 4 12 4 3 10 822 6 1 Lab: 6Lab: 6 CHROMIUM, UG/ LCHROMIUM, L 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 12 10 12 10 8 Lab: 7Lab: 7 CHROMIUM, UG/ LCHROMIUM, L Lab: 8Lab: 8 CHROMIUM, UG/ LCHROMIUM, L 10 8 68 6 6 4 4 4 2 2 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Lab: 9Lab: 9 CHROMIUM, UG/ LCHROMIUM, L Wed Mar 20 13: 32: 24 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Observed Standard DeviationAAMA Metals Data Page 5 of 13 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

10 Lab: 2Lab: 2 COPPER, UG/ LCOPPER, L 4 6 83 5 6 4 2 3 Lab: 1Lab: 1 COPPER, UG/ LCOPPER, L 4 1 22 Lab: 3Lab: 3 COPPER, UG/ LCOPPER, L 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 5 45 Lab: 4Lab: 4 COPPER, UG/ LCOPPER, L 7 6 44 Lab: 5Lab: 5 COPPER, UG/ LCOPPER, L 4 5 43 3 4 42 3 2 41 2 40 1 1 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 Lab: 6Lab: 6 COPPER, UG/ LCOPPER, L 60 10 8 Lab: 7Lab: 7 COPPER, UG/ LCOPPER, L Lab: 8Lab: 8 COPPER, UG/ LCOPPER, L 50 8 40 6 630 4 20 4 10 2 0 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 Lab: 9Lab: 9 COPPER, UG/ LCOPPER, L Wed Mar 20 13: 32: 26 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Observed Standard DeviationAAMA Metals Data Page 6 of 13 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

20 12 18 Lab: 1Lab: 1 LEAD, UG/ LLEAD, L 200 16 Lab: 2Lab: 2 LEAD, UG/ LLEAD, L 10 150 14 8 12 100 6 10 48 50 62 Lab: 3Lab: 3 LEAD, UG/ LLEAD, L 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 10 35 Lab: 4Lab: 4 LEAD, UG/ LLEAD, L Lab: 5Lab: 5 LEAD, UG/ LLEAD, L 20 8 30 6 15 425 10 2 20 05 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 Lab: 6Lab: 6 LEAD, UG/ LLEAD, L 25 22 20 20 20 15 18 16 15 10 14 10 5 12 10 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 Lab: 8Lab: 8 LEAD, UG/ LLEAD, L Lab: 9Lab: 9 LEAD, UG/ LLEAD, L Lab: 7Lab: 7 LEAD, UG/ LLEAD, L Wed Mar 20 13: 32: 28 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Observed Standard DeviationAAMA Metals Data Page 7 of 13 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

6.6 1.4 Lab: 1Lab: 1 MANGANESE, UG/

LMANGANESE, L Lab: 2Lab: 2 MANGANESE, UG/

LMANGANESE, L 0.8 6.4 1.2 0.6 6.2 0.4 1.0 6.0 0.2 5.8 0 1020304050 0 1020304050 0 1020304050 Lab: 3Lab: 3 MANGANESE, UG/

LMANGANESE, L 120 2.0 Lab: 5Lab: 5 MANGANESE, UG/

LMANGANESE, L 4 100 80 Lab: 4Lab: 4 MANGANESE, UG/

LMANGANESE, L 1.5 3 60 1.0 Lab: 6Lab: 6 MANGANESE, UG/

LMANGANESE, L 40 2 20 0.5 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Lab: 8Lab: 8 MANGANESE, UG/

LMANGANESE, L Lab: 9Lab: 9 MANGANESE, UG/

LMANGANESE, L2.0 2.0 5 1.8 1.5 1.6 4 Lab: 7Lab: 7 MANGANESE, UG/

LMANGANESE, L 1.4 1.0 1.2 3 1.0 0.5 2 0.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Wed Mar 20 13: 32: 30 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Observed Standard DeviationAAMA Metals Data Page 8 of 13 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

0.8 Lab: 1Lab: 1 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 0.09 0.30 0.08 0.6 Lab: 2Lab: 2 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 0.25 0.07 0.20 Lab: 3Lab: 3 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 0.4 0.06 0.15 0.2 0.05 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.30 0.14 3.0 0.25 0.12 2.5 0.20 0.10 2.0 0.08 0.15 1.5 0.06 0.10 0.04 1.0 0.05 0.02 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Lab: 5Lab: 5 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L Lab: 6Lab: 6 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L Lab: 4Lab: 4 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 0.20 0.4 0.15 0.15 Lab: 7Lab: 7 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 0.3 0.2 Lab: 8Lab: 8 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 0.10 0.10 0.1 0.05 0.05 Lab: 9Lab: 9 MERCURY, UG/

LMERCURY, L 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Wed Mar 20 13: 32: 32 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Observed Standard DeviationAAMA Metals Data Page 9 of 13 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

26 10 5 Lab: 1Lab: 1 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L 24 8 22 Lab: 2Lab: 2 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L 6 4 4 20 Lab: 3Lab: 3 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L 3 2 18 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 18 Lab: 4Lab: 4 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L Lab: 5Lab: 5 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L 20 5 16 4 15 14 3 12 10 2 10 5 81 Lab: 6Lab: 6 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 16 4 14 14 Lab: 7Lab: 7 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L 12 3 12 10 10 2 Lab: 8Lab: 8 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L 8 8 6 1 6 4 Lab: 9Lab: 9 MOLYBDENUM, UG/

LMOLYBDENUM, L 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Wed Mar 20 13: 32: 34 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Observed Standard DeviationAAMA Metals Data Page 10 of 13 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

80 4.5 Lab: 1Lab: 1 NICKEL, UG/

LNICKEL, L Lab: 2Lab: 2 NICKEL, UG/

LNICKEL, L 4 4.0 60 3.5 3 3.0 40 2 2.5 2.0 20 1 1.5 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 Lab: 3Lab: 3 NICKEL, UG/

LNICKEL, L 5 35 300 30 Lab: 4Lab: 4 NICKEL, UG/

LNICKEL, L 4 20025 3 20 2 Lab: 5Lab: 5 NICKEL, UG/

LNICKEL, L 100 15 1 10 0 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 Lab: 6Lab: 6 NICKEL, UG/

LNICKEL, L 5.0 8 Lab: 8Lab: 8 NICKEL, UG/

LNICKEL, L 10 4.5 4.0 Lab: 7Lab: 7 NICKEL, UG/

LNICKEL, L 6 8 3.5 46 3.0 2.5 2 4 Lab: 9Lab: 9 NICKEL, UG/

LNICKEL, L 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 Wed Mar 20 13: 32: 36 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Observed Standard DeviationAAMA Metals Data Page 11 of 13 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES) 40 40 Lab: 1Lab: 1 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 400 30 30 300 200 Lab: 2Lab: 2 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 20 20 100 10 10 Lab: 3Lab: 3 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 25 70 20 Lab: 5Lab: 5 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 300 60 15 200 50 Lab: 4Lab: 4 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 10 100 40 5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Lab: 6Lab: 6 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 3060 Lab: 7Lab: 7 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L Lab: 8Lab: 8 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 100 25 50 80 20 40 15 60 30 10 40 20 5 Lab: 9Lab: 9 SELENIUM, UG/

LSELENIUM, L 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Wed Mar 20 13: 32: 38 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Observed Standard DeviationAAMA Metals Data Page 12 of 13 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

Lab: 1Lab: 1 SILVER, UG/

LSILVER, L 2.5 15 2.0 2.0 10 1.5 1.5 5 Lab: 2Lab: 2 SILVER, UG/

LSILVER, L 1.0 1.0 0.5 Lab: 3Lab: 3 SILVER, UG/

LSILVER, L 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 80 47 Lab: 4Lab: 4 SILVER, UG/

LSILVER, L 2.0 6046 1.5 45 Lab: 5Lab: 5 SILVER, UG/

LSILVER, L 40 1.0 Lab: 6Lab: 6 SILVER, UG/

LSILVER, L 44 20 0.5 43 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 5.0 Lab: 7Lab: 7 SILVER, UG/

LSILVER, L 4 Lab: 8Lab: 8 SILVER, UG/

LSILVER, L 6 5 4.5 3 4 4.0 3 2 3.5 2 11 3.0 0 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 0 20 40 60 80100 Lab: 9Lab: 9 SILVER, UG/

LSILVER, L Wed Mar 20 13: 32: 40 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s Observed Standard DeviationAAMA Metals Data Page 13 of 13 Standard Deviations vs Spike Concentrations ( Original Scale)

( Matrix A, Method EPA 200.7 ICP/ AES)

52 5Lab: 1Lab: 1 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L Lab: 2Lab: 2 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L 5 50 4 48 4 46 33 44 22 42 Lab: 3Lab: 3 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 40 8 4 30 6 Lab: 5Lab: 5 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L 3 20 Lab: 4Lab: 4 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L 4 2 10 2 1 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Lab: 6Lab: 6 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L Lab: 7Lab: 7 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L 100 16 15 80 14 Lab: 8Lab: 8 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L Lab: 9Lab: 9 ZINC, UG/ LZINC, L 12 10 60 10 40 8 5 20 6 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 Wed Mar 20 13: 32: 42 2002 Spike Concentration c:/ pw/ ostmdl/ req005/ r005sd1. s


[Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 13370]
[DOCID:fr15mr06-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-176-115]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice Negotiated Rates

March 7, 2006.
    Take notice that on February 28, 2006, Natural Gas Pipeline Company
of America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to
become effective April 1, 2006:

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 26A
Second Revised Sheet No. 26A.01
Second Revised Sheet No. 26A.02
Original Sheet No. 414A.01

    Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to all
parties set out on the Commission's official service list.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3644 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA Registration Division contact: Barbara Madden ( 703) 305 6463 Interregional Research Project # 4 ( IR 4)

PP# 3E6637, 3E6749, 4E6823, 5E6916 Summary of Petitions EPA has received pesticide petitions from Interregional Research Project # 4 ( IR 4), [ 681 US Highway # 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902 3390] proposing pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.507 by establishing a tolerance for residues of azoxystrobin: ( methyl ( E) 2{ 2[ 6( 2 cyanophenoxy) pyrimidin 4 yloxy] phenyl} 3 methoxyacrylate) and the Z isomer of azoxystrobin, ( methyl ( Z) 2{ 2[ 6( 2 cyanophenoxy) pyrimidin 4 yloxy] phenyl} 3 methoxyacrylate) in or on the agricultural commodities ( in tolerance petitions):

Citrus Crop Group 10 ( adding post harvest)   PP# 5E6916 Citrus, dried pulp   20 ppm Citrus oil   40 ppm Herb, subgroup 19A Fresh   50 ppm   adding chives PP# 4E6823 Herb, subgroup 19A Dried   260 ppm   adding chives PP# 4E6823 Spice Subgroup 19B ( except black pepper)   ( adding spices)   38 ppm   PP# 3E6637 Foliage of Legume Vegetables   Crop Group 7   PP# 5E6916 Forage/ Vines   30 ppm Hay   55 ppm Fruiting Vegetables except tomato   Crop Group 8   PP# 5E6916 ( adding Groundcherry, Pepino, Tomatillo)   2 ppm Oil Seeds   PP# 3E6749 Crambe, Flax, Indian Mustard, Field Mustard, Black Mustard, Rapeseed, Indian Rapeseed, Safflower, Sunflower   0.5 ppm Pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6 B   PP# 5E6916 ( adding cowpea)   0.5 ppm Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6 C   PP# 5E6916 ( adding cowpea and field pea)   0.5 ppm Non grass Animal Feeds  Crop Group 18   PP# 5E6916 Forage   30 ppm Hay   55 ppm EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant Metabolism. The metabolism of azoxystrobin as well as the nature of the residues is adequately understood for purposes of the tolerances. Plant metabolism has been evaluated in four diverse crops, cotton, grapes, wheat and peanuts which should serve to define the similar metabolism of azoxystrobin a wide range of crops. Parent azoxystrobin is the major component found in crops. Azoxystrobin does not accumulate in crop seeds or fruits. Metabolism of azoxystrobin in plants is complex with more than 15 metabolites identified. These metabolites are present at low levels, typically much less than 5% of the TRR.

2. Analytical method. An adequate analytical method, gas chromatography with nitrogen phosphorus detection ( GC NPD) or in mobile phase by high performance liquid chromatography with ultra violet detection ( HPLC UV), is available for enforcement purposes with a limit of detection that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances. The Analytical Chemistry section of the EPA concluded that the method( s) are adequate for enforcement. Analytical methods are also available for analyzing meat, milk, poultry and eggs which also underwent successful independent laboratory validations.

3. Magnitude of the residues. Complete residue data for azoxystrobin on Citrus Crop Group 10 ( adding post harvest), Herb, subgroup 19A Fresh   adding chives, Herb, subgroup 19A Dried   adding chives, Spice Subgroup 19B ( except black pepper)   ( adding spices), Foliage of Legume Vegetables   Crop Group 7, Fruiting Vegetables except tomato   Crop Group 8 ( adding Groundcherry, Pepino, Tomatillo), Oil Seeds ( Crambe, Flax, Indian Mustard, Field Mustard, Black Mustard, Rapeseed, Indian Rapeseed, Safflower, Sunflower), Pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6 B ( adding cowpea), Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6 C ( adding cowpea and field pea), Non grass Animal Feeds  Crop Group 18 have been submitted. The requested tolerances are adequately supported. B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity NOAEL=< 200 mg/ kg/ day UF= 300 Acute RfD= 0.67 mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = 1X aPAD = Acute RfD + FQPA SF = 0.67 mg/ kg/ day Acute neurotoxicity study in rates LOAEL = 200 mg/ kg/ day based on diarrhea and 2 hours post dose at all dose levels up to and including 20 mg/ kg/ day ( the LOAEL)

3. Reproductive and Developmental toxicity) NOAEL = 25 mg/ kg/ day UF = 100 FQPA SF = 1X Prenatal developmental oral toxicity study in rates LOAEL = 100 mg/ kg/ day based on increased maternal diarrhea, urinary incontinence, and salivation.

4. Subchronic Toxicity NOAEL = 20 mg/ kg/ day UF = 100 FQPA SF = 1X 90 Day feeding study in rats LOAEL = 211/ 223 mg/ kg/ day in males/ females based on decreased body weight gain in both sexes and clinical signs indicative of reduced nutrition.

5. Chronic toxicity NOAEL = 18 mg/ kg/ day UF= 100 Chronic RfD = 0.18 mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF = 1X cPAD = chronic RfD + FQPA SF = 0.18 mg/ kg/ day Combined chronic toxicity carcinogenicity feeding study in rates LOAEL = 34/ 117 mg/ kg/ day in males/ females based on reduced bod weights in both sexes and bile duct lesions in males.

Azoxystrobin is classified " as not likely to be carcinogenic in humans"

6. Animal Metabolism The metabolism of azoxystrobin as well as the nature of the residues is adequately understood.

7. Metabolite toxicology. There are no metabolites of concern based on a differential metabolism between plants and animals.

8. Endocrine disruption. There is no evidence that azoxystrobin is an endocrine disrupter.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary Exposure. Tolerance values have been established ( 40 CFR 180.507 ( a)) for the combined residues of both azoxystrobin and its Z isomer, in or on a variety of raw agricultural commodities at levels ranging from 0.01 ppm on pecans to 260 ppm on dried herbs ( subgroup 19A except chives) and on meat, fat and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at levels ranging from 0.01 to 0.07 ppm, and on milk at 0.006 ppm. i. Food Tier I acute and chronic dietary exposure evaluations were made using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database ( DEEM FCID   ) , version 2.03 from Exponent. All processing factors were taken from the DEEM   default values, which were manually input into the DEEM FCID   software. Percent of crop treated values were conservatively estimated to be 100% for all registered and proposed uses. All consumption data for these assessments was taken from the USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intake by individuals ( CSFII) with the 1994 96 consumption database and the Supplemental CSFII children's survey ( 1998) consumption database. These dietary exposure assessments included all registered uses and proposed uses on dried citrus pulp ( 20 ppm), citrus oil ( 40 ppm), citrus fruit ( 10 ppm), foliage of legume vegetables ( 30 ppm) and fruiting vegetables except tomatoes ( 2.0 ppm).

Acute Exposure. An acute reference dose of 0.67 mg/ kg bw/ day for all population subgroups was based on a LOAEL of 200 mg/ kg/ day from an acute neurotoxicity study in rats and an uncertainty factor of 300X ( 100X for intra and inter species variability and 3X for absence of a NOAEL). No additional FQPA safety factor was applied. For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessment, the exposure value was expressed in terms of margin of exposure ( MOE), which was calculated by dividing the lowest observable adverse effect level ( LOAEL) by the exposure for each population subgroup. In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the acute reference dose (% aRfD). Acute exposure to the most sensitive population subgroup ( children, 1 2 years) resulted in an MOE of 433 ( 68.8% of the acute RfD of 0.67 mg/ kg bw/ day). Since the benchmark for this acute assessment was 300 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary ( food) exposure to residues arising from the current and proposed uses for azoxystrobin.

Chronic Exposure. The chronic reference dose ( RfD) for azoxystrobin is 0.18 mg/ kg bw/ day based on a combined chronic toxicity/ carcinogenicity study in rats with a NOAEL of 18 mg/ kgbw day and an uncertainty factor of 100X ( for combined intra and inter species variability). No additional FQPA safety factor was applied. For the purpose of aggregate risk assessment, the exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of exposure ( MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population subgroup. In addition, exposure was expressed as a percent of the chronic reference dose (% RfD). Drinking water estimates were incorporated directly into the dietary exposure assessment using the higher of the estimated drinking water concentrations ( EDWCs) for surface ( 33 ppb) and ground water ( 3.1 ppb). Chronic exposure to the U. S. population resulted in a MOE of 409 ( 24.4% of the chronic RfD of 0.18 mg/ kg bw/ day). The most exposed sub population was children ( 1 2 years old) with a MOE of 159 ( 62.8% of the chronic RfD of 0.18 mg/ kg bw/ day). Since the benchmark MOE for this chronic assessment was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary ( food plus water) exposure to residues arising from the current and proposed tolerance levels for azoxystrobin.

Cancer. Azoxystrobin has been classified as " not likely to be a human carcinogen" based on the revised Cancer Guidelines. Therefore, no cancer risk assessment was performed for azoxystrobin. ii. Drinking Water: The EPA uses the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool ( FIRST) or the Pesticide Root Zone/ Exposure Analysis Modeling System ( PRZM/ EXAMS) to estimate pesticide residues in an index reservoir. The SCI GROW model is used to predict pesticide concentrations in shallow ground water. None of these models include consideration of the impact processing of raw water ( mixing, dilution, or treatment) for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a conservative approximation of the estimated environmental concentration of specific pesticides in drinking water. Based on the Tier 1 modeling results using the FIRST model ( Federal Register, 18 June 2003; OPP 2003 0196, FRL 7311 2), the estimated drinking water concentrations ( EDWCs) of azoxystrobin in surface water were 170 parts per billion ( ppb) for the acute exposure and 33 ppb for the chronic exposure. These values represented upper bound estimates of the concentrations that might be found in surface water from the use of azoxystrobin on turf. For ground water ( SCI GROW) modeling, the EDWC of azoxystrobin was 3.1 ppb for both the acute and chronic exposure at the highest use rate ( turf use, nine applications per year, 10 day interval, and 0.55 lb a. i./ acre). Since the surface water EDWCs exceeded the ground water EDWCs, the surface water values were used for comparison to the acute Drinking Water Levels of Comparison ( DWLOC) and will be considered protective for any ground water concentration concerns. The acute DWLOC was calculated based on an acute Population Adjusted Dose ( aPAD) of 0.67 mg/ kg/ day. For the acute assessment, the population subgroup of children ( 1 2 years) generated an acute DWLOC of 2,088 ppb. Since the acute DWLOC of 2,088 ppb is higher than the acute EDWC of 170 ppb, the EPA should not have a concern for acute risk from either surface or ground water.

Drinking water estimates were incorporated directly into the chronic dietary exposure assessment using the higher of the estimated drinking water concentrations ( EDWCs) for surface water ( 33 ppb) and ground water ( 3.1 ppb). Chronic food plus water exposure to the U. S. population resulted in a MOE of 409 ( 24.4% of the chronic RfD of 0.18 mg/ kg bw/ day). The most exposed sub population was children ( 1 2 years old) with a MOE of 159 ( 62.8% of the chronic RfD of 0.18 mg/ kg bw/ day). Since the benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dietary ( food plus water) exposure to residues arising from the current and proposed tolerance levels for azoxystrobin.

2. Non Dietary Exposure: Risk assessments were conducted for non dietary uses of azoxystrobin since it is currently registered for residential use outdoors on turf and ornamentals, in product manufacturing, and as an indoor spray to carpets and other fabrics. Azoxystrobin may be applied to turf at rates of up to 0.95 lb a. i./ acre ( not to exceed 5 lb a. i./ acre per year) and to ornamentals at rates of up to 0.75 lb a. i./ acre ( not to exceed 5 lb a. i./ acre per year). Broadcast carpet applications can be made at 1 gallon per 250 square feet using a 0.1% solution ( equivalent to 160 mg/ m2 or 1.43 lb a. i./ acre). The residential post application risk assessments were conducted using the application to indoor carpets because it results in the highest potential exposure to the adult. A short term handler risk assessment was required for adults because there is a residential handler inhalation exposure scenario. Both short and intermediate term risk assessments were required for toddlers based on the potential for hand to mouth and object to mouth transfer of residues from treated carpet. For incidental non dietary oral exposure to azoxystrobin, a NOAEL of 25 mg/ kg/ day was used for short term exposure and a NOAEL of 20 mg/ kg/ day was used for intermediate term exposure. These same NOAELs were selected for assessing the risks from short term and intermediate term inhalation exposures. No dermal assessment is required.

For inhalation exposure scenarios, the margins of exposure ( MOEs) for adults ( U. S. population) making turf applications are 216,718 for short term exposure and 173,375 for intermediate term exposure. For post application exposure to treated carpets, the non dietary oral MOEs for children 1 2 years are 275 for short term exposure and 11,400 for intermediate term exposure. Since the EPA's benchmark MOE for azoxystrobin is 100, the residential exposures for both adults and toddlers do not exceed EPA's level of concern.

D. Cumulative Effects Cumulative Exposure to Substances With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity. Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider " available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and " other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity". Azoxystrobin is related to the naturally occurring strobilurins. Syngenta has concluded that further consideration of a common mechanism of toxicity is not appropriate at this time since there is no data to establish whether a common mechanism exists with any other substances.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. Population. The acute dietary exposure analysis ( food only) showed that exposure from all established and proposed azoxystrobin tolerances would result in a MOE of 1236 ( 24.2% of the acute RfD) for the general U. S. population. The acute aggregate exposure ( food plus water) from all established and proposed azoxystrobin tolerances resulted in a MOE of 1,200 for the general U. S. population, which exceeds the benchmark MOE of 300. The chronic dietary exposure analysis ( food plus water) showed that exposure from all established and proposed azoxystrobin tolerances resulted in a MOE of 409 ( 24.4% of the chronic RfD) for the general U. S. population. Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to residues of azoxystrobin is not expected and therefore there was no residential component for the chronic aggregate assessment. A short term aggregate exposure analysis ( food, water and residential) was required for adults because there is a residential handler inhalation exposure scenario. The corresponding MOEs were aggregated using the inverse MOE approach. For short term exposures, the dietary ( food and water) exposure ( MOE 568) was aggregated with the residential exposure ( MOE 216,718) resulting in a short term aggregate MOE of 567 for the U. S. population. An intermediate term aggregate exposure analysis ( food plus water plus residential) was not required for adults because residential handler scenarios are not expected to occur for longer than a short term time frame. Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data supporting these petitions, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to residues arising from all current and proposed azoxystrobin tolerances, including anticipated dietary exposure from food, water, and all other types of nonoccupational exposures.

2. Infants and children. The acute food exposure analysis showed that exposure from all established and proposed azoxystrobin uses resulted in a MOE of 433 ( 68.8% of the acute RfD) for the most sensitive population subgroup, children 1 2 years old. For this same population subgroup, the acute aggregate dietary ( food and water) exposure from all established and proposed azoxystrobin tolerances resulted in a MOE of 417. The chronic aggregate dietary ( food and water) exposure analysis showed that exposure from all established and proposed azoxystrobin uses would result in a MOE of 159 ( 62.8% of the chronic RfD) for the most sensitive population subgroup, children 1 2 years old. A short term aggregate exposure analysis ( food, water and residential) was required for infants and children because there is a residential post application oral exposure scenario. For short term exposures, the dietary exposure ( MOE 221) was aggregated with the residential exposure ( MOE 275) resulting in a short term aggregate MOE of 123 for the most sensitive population subgroup, children 1 2 years old. An intermediateterm aggregate exposure analysis ( dietary and residential) was required for infants and children because of the residential post application oral exposure scenario. For intermediate term exposures, the food plus water exposure ( MOE 177) was aggregated with the residential exposure ( MOE 11,400) resulting in an intermediate term aggregate MOE of 174 for children 1 2 years old. The EPA has determined that there is reliable data support using the standard MOE and uncertainty factor ( 100X for chronic and 300X for acute) for azoxystrobin and that an additional safety factor of 10 is not necessary to be protective of infants and children. The nondietary MOEs for post application exposures to toddlers were all above 100 for short and intermediate term exposures. Syngenta has considered the potential aggregate exposure from food, water and non occupational exposure routes and concluded that aggregate exposure is not expected to exceed 100% of the chronic reference dose and that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from the aggregate exposure to azoxystrobin.

F. International Tolerances No Codex, Canadian, or Mexican Maximum Residue Levels ( MRLs) have been established for residues of azoxystrobin on these crops. Therefore, no tolerance discrepancies exist between countries for this chemical.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16094-16095]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06705]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2015-0394; FRL-9944-19-Region 7]

Approval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans (SIP); State
of Iowa; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inadvertently
approved and codified incorrect entry numbers in the part 52
instructions for the final rule action published on November 2, 2015.
This technical amendment amends the part 52 codification instructions.

DATES: This action is effective March 25, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan Simpson at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67335), EPA
published a final rule approving a SIP revision for Iowa that approved
Iowa's November 4, 2011, submission addressing the requirements of the
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2008 Lead NAAQS.
Specifically, EPA approved the following infrastructure elements:
110(a)(2)(A),

(B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) which are
necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2008 Lead NAAQS. EPA
also approved Iowa's May 11, 2015, submission to include article 1,
section 2 of the Iowa Constitution, and portions of the Iowa code and
the Iowa Administrative Code to codify the relevant state laws as
applied to conflict of interest requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(E)
and 128 of the CAA.
    This technical amendment revises the erroneous part 52 instructions
published in the Federal Register on November 2, 2015 (80 FR 67335) in
the third column on page 67336 to read as follows: Amend Sec.  52.820
by adding new entries (e) (40) and (41).

    Dated: March 17, 2016.
Mark Hague,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart Q--Iowa

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.820 by adding entries (e)(40) and (41) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e)* * *

                                   EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Applicable
   Name of nonregulatory SIP     geographic area       State
           provision            or nonattainment  submittal date     EPA Approval date          Explanation
                                      area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(40) Sections 110(a)(1) and     Statewide.......         11/4/11  11/2/15; Correction 3/  This action addresses
 (2) Infrastructure                                                25/16 [Insert Federal   the following CAA
 Requirements 2008 Lead NAAQS.                                     Register citation].     elements:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M).
                                                                                110(a)(2)(I) is not
                                                                                applicable.
(41) Section 128 Declaration:
 Conflicts of Interest
 Provisions;
Constitution of the State of    ................  ..............  ......................  This action addresses
 Iowa, Article 1, Section 2.                                                               the following
                                                                                sections of the
                                                                                Constitution of the
                                                                                State of Iowa,
                                                                                Article 1, section 2;
Iowa Code: 4.4.(5), 7E.4,       ................  ..............  ......................  Iowa Code : 4.4 (5),
 Chapter 68B                                                                               7e.4, Chapter 68B;
Iowa Administrative Code: 351   Statewide.......         5/11/15  11/2/15; Correction 3/  Iowa Administrative
 IAC 6.11, 351 IAC 6.14(2),                                        25/16 [Insert Federal   Code: 351 IAC 6.11,
 351 IAC 6.19, 351 IAC 7.1-                                        Register citation].     351 IAC 6.14(2), 351
 7.2, 567 IAC 1.11 (1-9).                                                                  IAC 6.19, 351 IAC 7.1-
                                                                                7.2, 567 IAC 1.11(1-
                                                                                9).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-06705 Filed 3-24-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


? Need to return call by / at/ between and . Signature: Project No.: 0<IP_ADDRESS>   DISTRIBUTION Page ___ of _

Project Name: Steam Electric TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Outgoing Call Date: 2/ 17/ 05 Time: 9: 00 am Company Name: EPA Contact Name: Tim Connor Phone No.: 202 566 1059 Name: Lori Weiss GENERAL SUBJECT : 316( b) Technology Costs TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN I called Tim Connor to discuss the costing activities under 316( b) to determine if there is any information that can be used in the steam electric detailed study. The major points discussed are listed below:

$ The 316( b) survey did not contain a lot of information on the configuration of the intake structure which increased the difficulty in costing technologies. For example, the number and size of pumps were not requested. The survey did contain information on the water body.

$ The 316( b) rule focused on reducing fish kills and therefore focused on reducing impingement by technologies such as screening.

$ The facilities and UWAG did not agree with EPA's cost analysis for cooling towers. DOE developed their own costs for the industry which were much higher than EPA's. EPA cost information was based on data from retrofitting three facilities. UWAG argued that retrofitting is usually not possible and that these were unusual cases. If facilities could retrofit cooling towers they would already be doing that.

$ One alternative to cooling towers that was investigated was converting from constant speed to variable speed pumps. This would allow plants to cut back on flow during non peak months. However, this only reduces flow by about 10% versus a 90% reduction when converting to a recirculation system.

$ New facilities  Most new plants are large facilities and therefore would use a recirculating system.

$ Existing facilities  Tim estimated that 30 40% of existing facilities used a recirculating system. The facilities that are once through systems are generally the older facilities. These facilities are generally coal, oil, or nuclear. A few of the older plants have done studies to look at converting to a recirculation system but the costs are prohibitively high. The Diablo Canyon plant in California estimated in would cost $ 800 million to retrofit their plant. ? Need to return call by / at/ between and . Signature: Potential resources Tim mentioned that would be helpful for the steam electric detailed study:

$ UDI Database of Chemical Use Rates ( This is actually the Power Statistics Database published by Edison Electric Institute and prepared by the Utility Data Institute).

$ 316( b) has a lot of information about the major facilities.

$ 316( b) survey database for demographic information.

$ New York and California State programs.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 63 (Monday, April 5, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17555-17557]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06739]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0074; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANE-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Restricted Areas R-4102A and R-4102B; Fort
Devens, MA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify restricted areas R-4102A and R-
4102B at Fort Devens, MA, by amending the boundaries of the areas to
align with the boundaries of the Fort Devens installation; and by
changing the time of designation to reflect actual usage of the
airspace.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-
0074, Airspace Docket No. 20-ANE-5, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the internet at
www.regulations.gov.
    Comments on environmental and land use aspects should be directed
to Emily Babbit De Nicasio, Environmental Director DPW USAG Fort
Devens, 30 Quebec St., Box 10, Devens, MA 01434-4479, telephone: (978)
796-2096, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify restricted area airspace at Fort Devens,
MA, to enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential U.S. Army
hazardous training activities.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0074; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANE-5) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0074; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANE-5.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person at the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Eastern
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701
Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337.

Background

    Fort Devens was established in 1917 as ``Camp Evans.'' It was
renamed Fort Devens in 1932. In 1991, the Base Realignment and Closure
Commission (BRAC) recommended the closure of Fort Devens as an active
U.S. Army installation and the retention of those areas and facilities
essential to support the U.S. Army Reserves.\1\ As a result of BRAC's
recommendation, Fort Devens closed as an active duty U.S. Army
installation on March 31, 1996, and, the next day, transitioned to a
U.S. Army Reserve installation. Fort Devens remains an active training
site for Reserve and National Guard forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission: Report to
the President (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Restricted airspace supporting the Fort Devens training areas
consists of R-4102A and R-4102B. R-4102A extends from the surface to,
but not including, 2,000 feet MSL. R-4102B overlies R-4102A sharing the
same lateral boundaries. R-4102B extends from 2,000 feet MSL to 3,995
feet MSL.
    The current time of designation of the restricted areas is ``0800
to 2200 Saturday local time; other times by NOTAM issued 24 hours in
advance''. These times were adequate when Fort Devens became an U.S.
Army Reserve installation in 1996 because training took place only on
Saturdays. However, in succeeding years, the amount of training has
significantly increased due to improved capabilities of the Range
Complex and Training Areas, and greater demands for training. Today,
Fort Devens provides training support for all military service
branches.\2\ Consequently, training is being conducted throughout the
week rather than only on Saturdays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under the shared use concept in FAA Order 7400.2, the FAA
expects the military to share use of its special use airspace (SUA)
with other military units to the extent possible to preclude
creation of additional SUA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An FAA review of Restricted Area Annual Utilization Reports for R-
4102A and R-4102B noted that the restricted areas are being used
significantly more than the published time of designation. However, the
existing provision for ``other times by NOTAM issued 24 hours in
advance'' allows for the additional use. FAA policy in FAA Order
7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, states that the
published time of designation should reflect times when use of the
airspace is normally expected to occur. Modifying the published times
for R-4102A and R-4102B to reflect current actual usage would provide
more accurate usage information to the aviation community, reduce the
reliance on the NOTAM system for announcing routine daily use of the
airspace, eliminate the administrative workload of issuing daily
NOTAMs, and help reduce the large volume of daily NOTAMs in the system.
    Additionally, certain portions of restricted areas R-4102A and R-
4102B extend beyond the property boundaries of the Fort Devens
installation and are not being used for military activities and need to
be removed from the restricted airspace. A small section along the
northern edge of the airspace overlies the Souza-Baranowski
Correctional Center, and is not usable for military training due to the
proximity of people and facilities on the ground. The northeast section
of the airspace extends over part of the Oxbow National Wildlife
Refuge, and is not usable for military training for environmental
reasons. The southwest section of the airspace, toward the town of
Lancaster, MA, is not used due to the proximity of residential and
commercial property.
    Finally, there are three sections of the military training area
that are contained within the Fort Devens installation property
boundary, but are not covered by the current restricted airspace. These
areas are: A small slice along the southeast side of the restricted
areas; a small section on the northern side; and, a larger area along
the northwest side of the restricted area. The restricted airspace
needs to be expanded to contain these sections in order to better
utilize the Fort Devens installation training area.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to modify the
time of designation, and the boundaries of restricted areas R-4102A and
R-4102B at Fort Devens, MA. The current time of designation is ``0800
to 2200 Saturday local time; other times by NOTAM issued 24 hours in
advance.'' This designation does not reflect the actual routine daily
use of the airspace necessary to meet the training requirements at Fort
Devens. The FAA proposes to amend the time of designation to read:
``Intermittent, 0730 to 2200 local time, daily; other times by NOTAM
issued 24 hours in advance.'' This change would provide more accurate
information to the aviation community about the current routine use of
the airspace, and it would eliminate the administrative workload of
issuing daily NOTAMs to activate the restricted areas.
    The FAA also proposes to modify the boundaries of restricted areas
R-4102A and R-4102B by removing sections of the restricted airspace
that are not contained within the Fort Devens installation property
boundaries. Additionally, it proposes to slightly expand the restricted
areas on the northwest, northeast, and southeast sides to include small
parts of the training area that are currently located within the Fort
Deven installation property boundaries, but are not covered by the
current restricted area boundaries. These proposed boundary changes
would result in an overall reduction in the size of the restricted
areas at Fort Devens and would improve the functionality of the
training area as well as increase safety during training operations.
    During periods when the restricted areas are not needed by the
using agency, the airspace would be returned to the controlling agency
(FAA, Boston Approach Control).

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It,

therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  73.41   Massachusetts [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.41 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-4102A Fort Devens, MA [Amended]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 42[deg]31'11'' N, long.
71[deg]38'29'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'55'' N, long. 71[deg]37'51'' W;
to lat. 42[deg]30'12'' N, long. 71[deg]38'05'' W; to lat.
42[deg]29'38'' N, long. 71[deg]37'41'' W; to lat. 42[deg]28'21'' N,
long. 71[deg]39'14'' W; to lat. 42[deg]28'11'' N, long.
71[deg]39'32'' W; to lat. 42[deg]28'11'' N, long. 71[deg]39'38'' W;
to lat. 42[deg]28'15'' N, long. 71[deg]39'45'' W; to lat.
42[deg]28'25'' N, long. 71[deg]40'08'' W; to lat. 42[deg]28'54'' N,
long. 71[deg]41'00'' W; to lat. 42[deg]29'08'' N, long.
71[deg]41'06'' W; to lat. 42[deg]29'52'' N, long. 71[deg]41'08'' W;
to lat. 42[deg]30'17'' N, long. 71[deg]41'29'' W; to lat.
42[deg]30'19'' N, long. 71[deg]41'19'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'37'' N,
long. 71[deg]40'30'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'43'' N, long.
71[deg]40'17'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'52'' N, long. 71[deg]40'14'' W;
to lat. 42[deg]30'54'' N, long. 71[deg]40'10'' W; to lat.
42[deg]30'53'' N, long. 71[deg]40'02'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'48'' N,
long. 71[deg]39'57'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'47'' N, long.
71[deg]39'45'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'55'' N, long. 71[deg]39'31'' W;
to lat. 42[deg]30'58'' N, long. 71[deg]39'18'' W; to lat.
42[deg]30'57'' N, long. 71[deg]39'09'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'52'' N,
long. 71[deg]38'42'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'58'' N, long.
71[deg]38'33'' W; to lat. 42[deg]31'06'' N, long. 71[deg]38'37'' W;
thence to the point of beginning. Designated altitudes. Surface to,
but not including, 2,000 feet MSL. Time of designation.
Intermittent, 0730-2200 local time, daily; other times by NOTAM
issued 24 hours in advance. Controlling agency. FAA, Boston Approach
Control. Using agency. Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Devens,
MA.

R-4102B Fort Devens, MA [Amended]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 42[deg]31'11'' N, long.
71[deg]38'29'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'55'' N, long. 71[deg]37'51'' W;
to lat. 42[deg]30'12'' N, long. 71[deg]38'05'' W; to lat.
42[deg]29'38'' N, long. 71[deg]37'41'' W; to lat. 42[deg]28'21'' N,
long. 71[deg]39'14'' W; to lat. 42[deg]28'11'' N, long.
71[deg]39'32'' W; to lat. 42[deg]28'11'' N, long. 71[deg]39'38'' W;
to lat. 42[deg]28'15'' N, long. 71[deg]39'45'' W; to lat.
42[deg]28'25'' N, long. 71[deg]40'08'' W; to lat. 42[deg]28'54'' N,
long. 71[deg]41'00'' W; to lat. 42[deg]29'08'' N, long.
71[deg]41'06'' W; to lat. 42[deg]29'52'' N, long. 71[deg]41'08'' W;
to lat. 42[deg]30'17'' N, long. 71[deg]41'29'' W; to lat.
42[deg]30'19'' N, long. 71[deg]41'19'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'37'' N,
long. 71[deg]40'30'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'43'' N, long.
71[deg]40'17'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'52'' N, long. 71[deg]40'14'' W;
to lat. 42[deg]30'54'' N, long. 71[deg]40'10'' W; to lat.
42[deg]30'53'' N, long. 71[deg]40'02'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'48'' N,
long. 71[deg]39'57'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'47'' N, long.
71[deg]39'45'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'55'' N, long. 71[deg]39'31'' W;
to lat. 42[deg]30'58'' N, long. 71[deg]39'18'' W; to lat.
42[deg]30'57'' N, long. 71[deg]39'09'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'52'' N,
long. 71[deg]38'42'' W; to lat. 42[deg]30'58'' N, long.
71[deg]38'33'' W; to lat. 42[deg]31'06'' N, long. 71[deg]38'37'' W;
thence to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 2,000 feet MSL to 3,995 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Intermittent, 0730-2200 local time, daily;
other times by NOTAM issued 24 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Boston Approach Control.
    Using agency. Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Devens, MA.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 29, 2021.
George Gonzalez,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-06739 Filed 4-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6963-6964]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02331]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0876]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0066

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0066,
Vessel and Facility Response Plans (Domestic and Int'l), and Additional
Response Requirements for Prince William Sound; without change. Our ICR
describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and
comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate
with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March
9, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2019-0876] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention
Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely

manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S.
Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710,
Washington, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Albert Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consistent with
the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the
Regulatory Reform Agenda, the Coast Guard is also requesting comments
on the extent to which this request for information could be modified
to reduce the burden on respondents. These comments will help OIRA
determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2019-0876], and must be received by March 9,
2020.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0066.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (84 FR 59395, November 4,
2019) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no
comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Vessel and Facility Response Plans (Domestic and Int'l), and
Additional Response Requirements for Prince William Sound.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0066.
    Summary: The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) required the
development of Vessel and Facility Response Plans to minimize the
impact of oil spills. OPA 90 also required additional response
requirements for Prince William Sound. Shipboard Oil Pollution
Emergency Plans and Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plans are
required of other vessels to minimize imparts of oil spills.
    Need: This information is needed to ensure that vessels and
facilities are prepared to respond in event of a spill incident. The
information is reviewed by the Coast Guard to assess the effectiveness
of the response plan.
    Forms: N/A.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels and facilities.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from
75,380 hours to 88,381 hours a year, due to an increase in the
estimated annual number of responses.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: January 31, 2020.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2020-02331 Filed 2-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29352-29353]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11933]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0473]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and
Handling of Food

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection
provisions of FDA's requirements for food irradiation processors.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by July 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400T,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Irradiation in the Production, Processing, and Handling of Food--21 CFR
Part 179 (OMB Control Number 0910-0186)--Extension

    Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 321(s) and 348), food
irradiation is subject to regulation under the food additive premarket
approval provisions of the FD&C Act. The regulations providing for uses
of irradiation in the production, processing, and handling of food are
found in part 179 (21 CFR part 179). To ensure safe use of a radiation
source, Sec.  179.21(b)(1) requires that the label of sources bear
appropriate and accurate information identifying the source of
radiation and the maximum (or minimum and maximum) energy of radiation
emitted by X-ray tube sources. Section 179.21(b)(2) requires that the
label or accompanying labeling bear adequate directions for
installation and use and a statement supplied by FDA that indicates
maximum dose of radiation allowed. Section 179.26(c) requires that the
label or accompanying labeling bear a logo and a radiation disclosure
statement. Section 179.25(e) requires that food processors who treat
food with radiation make and retain, for 1 year past the expected shelf
life of the products up to a maximum of 3 years, specified records
relating to the irradiation process (e.g., the food treated, lot
identification, scheduled process, etc.). The records required by Sec.
179.25(e) are used by FDA inspectors to assess compliance with the
regulation that establishes limits within which radiation may be safely
used to treat food. The Agency cannot ensure safe use without a method
to assess compliance with the dose limits, and there are no practicable
methods for analyzing most foods to determine whether they have been
treated with ionizing radiation and are within the limitations set
forth in part 179. Records inspection is the only way to determine
whether firms are complying with the regulations for treatment of foods
with ionizing radiation.
    Description of respondents: Respondents are businesses engaged in
the irradiation of food.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                               Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
         21 CFR Section              Number of      records per    Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                   recordkeepers   recordkeeper       records      recordkeeping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
179.25(e), Large processors.....               3             300             900               1             900
179.25(e), Small processors.....               4              30             120               1             120
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           1,020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    FDA bases its estimate of burden for the recordkeeping provisions
of Sec.  179.25(e) on the Agency's experience regulating the safe use
of radiation as a direct food additive. The number of firms who process
food using irradiation is extremely limited. FDA estimates that there
are three irradiation plants whose business is devoted primarily (i.e.,
approximately 100 percent) to irradiation of food and other
agricultural products. Four other firms also irradiate small quantities
of food. FDA estimates that this irradiation accounts for no more than
10 percent of the business for each of these firms. Therefore, the
average estimated burden is based on three facilities devoting 100
percent of their business to food irradiation (3 x 300 hours = 900
hours for recordkeeping annually), and four facilities devoting 10
percent of their business to food irradiation (4 x 30 hours = 120 hours
for recordkeeping annually).
    No burden has been estimated for the labeling requirements in
Sec. Sec.  179.21(b)(1), 179.21(b)(2), and 179.26(c) because the
information to be disclosed is information that has been supplied by
FDA. Under 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), the public disclosure of information
originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for the
purpose of disclosure to the public is not a collection of information.

    Dated: May 11, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-11933 Filed 5-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P