<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="11/06/2008 01:55:35 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register: September 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 169)]
[Notices]
[Page 45436-45437]
[DOCID:fr02se09-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12492-001]

Ha-Best Inc.; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments

August 26, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: P-12492-001.
    c. Date Filed: July 31, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Ha-Best Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Miner Shoal Waterpower Project.
    f. Location: The proposed project is located on the Soque River,
near the Town of Demorest, Habersham County, Georgia. The proposed
project does not occupy federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Don Ferguson, 34 West Jarrard Street,
Cleveland, GA 30528; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Janet Hutzel, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    j. Deadline for Filing Scoping Comments: September 25, 2009.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the
``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text only
comments, click on ``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at
(866) 208-3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The proposed Minor Shoal Project would consists of the
following: (1) An existing 5-foot-high, 80-foot-long diversion dam; (2)
an existing 92-foot-long, 7-foot-diameter steel penstock; (3) a new
160-foot-long, 7-foot-diameter steel penstock from the diversion dam
tying in to the existing penstock at elevation 1,228 feet mean sea
level; (4) two existing powerhouses containing a total of three
turbines with a total installed capacity of 1,260 kilowatts; (5) an
existing 446-foot-long, 230-kilovolt transmission line and (6)
appurtenant facilities. The project would have an annual generation of
2,175,000 kilowatt-hours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to address the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in Item H above.
    n. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    o. Scoping Process.
    The Commission staff intends to prepare a single Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the Miner Shoal Waterpower Project in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both
site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action.
    Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping
meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments,
recommendations, and information, on the Scoping Document (SD) issued
on August 26, 2007.
    Copies of the SD outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the
EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and
the applicant's distribution list. Copies of the SD may be viewed on
the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or
for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21112 Filed 9-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 173 (Thursday, September 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 55079]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19441]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2020-0087]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance and Extension of Comment Period

    On July 25, 2022, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
published notice \1\ of its receipt of a petition dated June 28, 2022,
from Illinois Central Railroad Company, for itself and on behalf of the
U.S. railroad subsidiaries operating under the Canadian National
Railway Company (CN), resubmitting a petition for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR part 232 (Brake System Safety Standards
for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-Of-Train
Devices). The relevant FRA docket number is FRA-2020-0087.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2020-0087-0009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in FRA's July 25, 2022, notice, CN requested to use
software technology to implement a virtual three-dimensional simulation
as an alternative to satisfy the ``hands-on'' portion of periodic
refresher training required by 49 CFR 232.203(b)(8). Refresher training
is required at intervals not to exceed 3 years, and must consist of
classroom and hands-on training, as well as testing. CN cites FRA's
January 10, 2022, denial \2\ of its previous petition and states that
its June 28, 2022, resubmission addresses the concerns raised in FRA's
decision letter. In support of its petition, CN explains that the
proposed ``systematic, blended training curriculum'' ``exceeds the
training objectives'' required by the regulation ``and is designed to
increase user proficiency'' and ``reduc[e] air brake defects across the
CN network.'' CN notes that it ``only plans to use this requested
waiver for refresher training of employees in train and engine
service,'' and not for any other craft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2020-0087-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA's July 25, 2022, notice provided a 45-day public comment period
(ending September 8, 2022) on CN's request for relief. Subsequent to
publication of that notice, in a letter dated August 19, 2022, CN
stated that it is seeking to assemble a meeting and demonstration of
the subject software for FRA and union representatives in ``the second
half of September.'' \3\ Therefore, CN requests to extend the comment
period by an additional 45 days to allow comments to be submitted
following the software demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2020-0087-0012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA understands that the demonstration of the subject software has
been scheduled for the end of September. Accordingly, to ensure all
interested parties have ample time to provide their comments subsequent
to that demonstration, FRA is extending the comment period in this
waiver proceeding for an additional 60 days.
    A copy of CN's petition, as well as all written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by November 7, 2022 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-19441 Filed 9-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


Site Visits Related to Diacetyl and Flavorings that Contain Diacetyl:

Food Manufacturing Facility D – Baked Snack Food Production

Table of Contents

  TOC \o "1-5" \h \z \u    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544670"  1	Introduction
 PAGEREF _Toc222544670 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544671"  1.1.	Project Overview	  PAGEREF
_Toc222544671 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544672"  1.2.	Food Manufacturing Facility D -
Overview	  PAGEREF _Toc222544672 \h  4

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544673"  1.3.	Quantifying Diacetyl Usage
PAGEREF _Toc222544673 \h  5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544674"  1.4.	Facility, Equipment, and Processes
 PAGEREF _Toc222544674 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544675"  1.4.1.	Baked Snack Food Dough Production
and Handling	  PAGEREF _Toc222544675 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544676"  1.4.2.	Quality Assurance Activities
PAGEREF _Toc222544676 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544677"  1.4.3.	Baking the Snack Food	  PAGEREF
_Toc222544677 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544678"  1.4.4.	Packaging Activities	  PAGEREF
_Toc222544678 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544679"  1.4.5.	Other – Spray Application
PAGEREF _Toc222544679 \h  7

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544680"  <IP_ADDRESS>.	Enclosed, Ventilated Tumbler
and Drier	  PAGEREF _Toc222544680 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544681"  2	Process Descriptions for Monitored
Employees	  PAGEREF _Toc222544681 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544682"  2.1.	Production Operator A	  PAGEREF
_Toc222544682 \h  8

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544683"  2.2.	Production Operator B	  PAGEREF
_Toc222544683 \h  9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544684"  2.3.	Bystander (Safety and Health
Visitor)	  PAGEREF _Toc222544684 \h  10

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544685"  3	Exposure Assessment	  PAGEREF
_Toc222544685 \h  11

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544686"  3.1.	Sampling and Analytical Methods
PAGEREF _Toc222544686 \h  11

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544687"  3.1.1.	Equipment	  PAGEREF _Toc222544687
\h  11

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544688"  3.1.2.	Limit of Quantification	  PAGEREF
_Toc222544688 \h  12

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544689"  3.1.3.	Blank Samples	  PAGEREF
_Toc222544689 \h  13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544690"  3.2.	Air Monitoring Results	  PAGEREF
_Toc222544690 \h  13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544691"  3.2.1.	Diacetyl and Acetoin	  PAGEREF
_Toc222544691 \h  13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544692"  3.2.2.	Previous Diacetyl Air Monitoring
 PAGEREF _Toc222544692 \h  17

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544693"  4	Examples of Controls in Place
PAGEREF _Toc222544693 \h  17

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544694"  4.1.	Overview	  PAGEREF _Toc222544694 \h
 17

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544695"  5	Discussion	  PAGEREF _Toc222544695 \h
18

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc222544696"  5.1.	Relationship between Results,
Sources of Exposure, and Controls in Use	  PAGEREF _Toc222544696 \h  18

 Butter Flavor and Food Flavors Containing Diacetyl

Site visit report:

Food Manufacturing Facility D – Baked Snack Food Production

Executive Summary

Some snack foods include flavorings that contain diacetyl as an
ingredient. ERG evaluated potential worker exposure to diacetyl and
acetoin while employees controlled dough production, extrusion,
conveying, baking, and packaging operations during production of a snack
item that includes diacetyl-containing flavor in the dough. All steps
were highly automated and controlled from central consoles.

Diacetyl was detected repeatedly in the breathing zone of one employee
who monitored the dough mixing and extruding equipment and performed
basic quality tests of raw dough. The highest result was 0.164 ppm for a
partial-shift sample obtained during a period in which this employee
(Production Operator A) poured the flavoring, handled raw dough, and
cleaned production areas. This is one of three results that are above
the limit of quantification (LOQ) (out of 16 total results obtained).
Diacetyl was detected at levels of 0.111 ppm in the flavor tank area and
0.011 ppm along side the conveyer (the latter value is below the LOQ).

Other general area test results indicate that no diacetyl was detected
near the baking oven, in the packaging room, and in the Q/A laboratory.
Nor was diacetyl detected in the breathing zones of a bystander and a
second production operator who spent a substantial portion of the shift
assisting with equipment repair work in another part of the plant.

Acetoin was not detected in any of the samples collected at this
facility.

Butter Flavor and Food Flavors Containing Diacetyl

Site visit report:

Food Manufacturing Facility D – Baked Snack Food Production

Introduction

Project Overview

Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) conducted an industrial hygiene site
visit on June 18 and 19, 2008 at Food Manufacturing Facility D, a
producer of baked snack food (hereafter referred to as Facility D). This
is one of a series of site visits conducted for the purpose of obtaining
information on (1) the use of flavor products containing diacetyl and
commonly associated flavor ingredients (e.g., acetoin) in the
manufacture of food and beverage products; (2) the exposures of
employees at the facility to diacetyl and acetoin; and (3) the controls
in place to reduce exposure. In particular, the site visit was intended
to evaluate the exposures of workers who produce and bake an extruded
dough product in the snack food industry.

 Three ERG industrial hygienists met with representatives of Facility D
on June 18 to walk through the facility, discuss the processes
performed, the materials used, and the job categories with potential for
exposure to food flavorings that contain diacetyl at this plant. The
next day the ERG team conducted short-term, partial-shift and full-shift
personal breathing-zone (PBZ) air monitoring and observed the work
practices of employees identified as having potential for exposure to
diacetyl. ERG also evaluated airflow patterns and exposure controls in
use at the facility.

Food Manufacturing Facility D - Overview

Facility D uses highly automated processes to produce a baked snack food
that includes butter flavoring as an ingredient in the dough, which is
mixed on site. Briefly, an employee manually measures and adds flavor to
a tank of other liquid ingredients, which are automatically incorporated
into a dough. Machinery extrudes the dough as raw snack product onto a
conveyer system that carries the product through a large oven where it
is baked. Finally, the product is air cooled and conveyed to machinery
that packages it in typical plastic-film snack food bags.

The plant staffs three daily shifts, typically five days per week. Day
and evening shift personnel primarily make product, while most
sanitation activities occur on the night shift. Most of the equipment in
the plant is modern, some installed within the last 3 years, and the
overall impression is of a spacious, clean establishment.

This production plant is affiliated with a company that has more than
one production site. A plant-based safety manager coordinates with the
company’s main office when specialized health and safety services are
needed. Through a consultant, the company had conducted screening air
monitoring for diacetyl in the flavor-handling area in late 2006 (see
Section 3.2.2 of this report).

Quantifying Diacetyl Usage

According to the product material safety data sheet (MSDS) inspected by
ERG (dated mid-2007) the butter flavor used in this baked snack food
contains 1 to 5 percent diacetyl. Facility D understands that the
formulation diacetyl content is likely at the bottom of this range. No
information on acetoin content was available from either the MSDS or
Facility D. ERG was not permitted to collect a bulk sample of the
flavoring.

Approximately twice per shift an employee adds several quarts of a
purchased flavor product to a mixing tank containing other liquid
ingredients with which the flavor readily combines to form a solution of
0.05 to 0.5 percent diacetyl (approximate). If the diacetyl content of
the flavor is roughly 1 percent (the low end of the range presented on
the MSDS), ERG estimates that diacetyl usage could be in the range of
0.1 to 0.2 pounds of pure diacetyl per shift (always as a premixed
component of a purchased flavor emulsion). In the less likely event that
the diacetyl content is at the high end of the range published on the
MSDS, the estimated pure diacetyl usage could approach 10 pounds per
shift.

ERG estimates that the diacetyl content of the finished dough is not
greater than 0.001 percent and is probably less.

Facility, Equipment, and Processes

Baked Snack Food Dough Production and Handling

The baked snack food manufacturing process involves: 1) a dough
production and handling room with a semi-enclosed flavor area used for
combining flavor into other liquid ingredients (walls, but no doors
separate the flavor area from the adjacent production room); 2) an oven
room containing more than one room-length, enclosed and exhausted oven;
and 3) a packaging room containing multiple form/fill/seal packaging
machines. The facility also has an office area with a conference room
and an employee break room (accessible though the office area). These
non-production spaces are separated from the production areas by closed
doors and a corridor. ERG observed that the dividing corridor appears to
be under positive air pressure compared to the production area,
preventing production area air from entering the office area and break
room.

As noted previously, a production operator (one designated per shift)
manually adds flavoring to other liquid ingredients in a tank, loosely
covered by a sheet metal flap, in the flavor area. An area air sample
was obtained adjacent to the row of three tanks, one of which contained
a mixture including butter flavor produced with diacetyl.

Monitored by an employee at a remote console, the flavored liquid mix is
pumped into an enclosed batch mixer where it is combined with flour and
other dry ingredients. The resulting dough is automatically discharged
without human contact and processed in batches (with relatively small
surface area for the volume of dough) through a step that prepares the
dough to enter an extruder.

Employees watch from open control stations along the production line
while the dough is extruded as raw snack product onto an open conveyer,
then proceeds through additional brief process steps (e.g., non-diacetyl
surface treatments) to reach the baking oven. In this room, the total
exposed dough surface area associated with shaping and conveying this
product is estimated at approximately 50 to 200 ft2.

Monitoring was performed for Product Operator A, one of the three
production operators in the dough production area this day. This
employee was also responsible for measuring and pouring the flavoring
that contained diacetyl. Additionally, an area air sample was collected
at an unused work station immediately adjacent to the midpoint of the
length of the conveyer transporting raw product made with the diacetyl
flavor.

Quality Assurance Activities

Employees enter a Q/A laboratory through a door in one wall of the
production area. Production operators handle raw dough to perform some
Q/A evaluations in the production area, while in the laboratory Q/A
specialists perform other tests on raw dough (supplied by the production
operators, who obtain samples by hand) and on finished product. The
tests sometimes involve pulverizing the product in a small, enclosed
blender. Sensory testing (smell, taste, appearance) involves an employee
smelling and tasting a small amount of product taken from a finished
package. Q/A personnel perform this testing for a moment every few
hours, during which time the employee’s contact with the product is no
greater (and probably significantly less) than a typical consumer
snacking from a bag.

Baking the Snack Food

 To bake the snack product, Facility D passes extruded dough through the
length of an oven via conveyer. The product travels from one end of the
oven to the other and then transfers to a second conveyer that returns
the product to the front of the oven as it continues baking.  ERG
obtained an area air sample within two feet of the point where the
product transfers from one conveyer to the next for the return trip
through the oven. The oven room is unattended (no employees present,
except during cleaning/sweeping when necessary – perhaps once per
shift).

Packaging Activities

From the oven, baked snack product is automatically conveyed to a
separate packaging room where a metering system feeds product into
form/fill/seal-style packaging machines. ERG collected an area sample in
the packaging room.

Other – Spray Application

Certain products receive an additional coating of a flavoring agent
after baking and before packaging. Certain flavoring agents are applied
using a large, fully enclosed tumbler and an associated drier. ERG
observed the tumbler in action, although diacetyl-containing flavor was
not applied at this location the monitoring date.

Enclosed, Ventilated Tumbler and Drier

When used, the enclosed tumbler includes a large diameter barrel that
rotates on its horizontal axis. Product is dropped from the conveyer
into the tumbler at one end of the barrel and eventually exits from the
other end, guided by internal fins that keep the product advancing down
the length of the barrel as it rotates. Nozzles spray the tumbling
product with an aqueous flavor slurry. The tumbler is fully enclosed in
a sheet metal housing with interlocking fan and an exhaust take-off at
the top that is ducted outdoors through the ceiling. Product enters and
exits the tumbler through chutes that pass through the housing. Although
it was not possible to obtain accurate air velocity readings at all
openings, ERG measured an average face velocity of approximately 670
feet per minute (fpm) at the product intake port. Ventilation design
specifications were not available.

The product drier is a separate unit that circulates warm air as the
product moves through the drier. The equipment consists of an outer
sheet metal case and inner conveying apparatus. Like the tumbler, the
drier is exhausted from the top through the ceiling. This equipment is
fitted with a clean-in-place (CIP) system.

Process Descriptions for Monitored Employees

ERG monitored two production operators performing different activities
in different parts of the facility.

Production Operator A

Three consecutive partial-shift samples totaling 461 minutes were
associated with Production Operator A (working in the dough production
area). Two short-term task samples (15 to 25 minutes) were obtained
concurrently. During this time the employee primarily stood at a control
station approximately 15 feet away from the conveyer carrying dough that
contained diacetyl). Several times per hour the operator walked the
production line to make a visual inspection or to pick up samples of the
diacetyl-flavored dough (manually manipulating the volume of a small
handful). This employee also checked the levels of liquid ingredients in
the flavor room tanks by standing on the mezzanine (so the tank openings
were hip height), lifting the lid, and leaning over the tank to look
inside (5 seconds). Toward the end of the day (late in the second
sample) the employee spent several minutes sweeping the oven room and
cleaning other process areas.

In the final sampling period, and during the second short-term sample,
Production Operator A measured and poured a sample of butter flavor
using the following process:

Lift lid to check fill-level of the tank;

Gather measuring container and adjust tilt angle of 50 gallon barrel of
butter flavor (spigot is between knee and hip height when barrel is
tilted on portable stand);

Position measuring container below spigot;

Bending over barrel end, open spigot and fill container to the
prescribed level (several quarts);

Close spigot and [typically] carry the open container 15 feet across the
room and up several steps to the mezzanine in front of the liquid
ingredient tanks;

Lift lid and pour flavor into the appropriate tank (2 minutes for entire
measuring and pouring process);

Carry measuring container around the corner to a sink and rinse with hot
water. (1 minute); and

Adjust flavor barrel upright in its stand.

The entire process takes less than 5 minutes. Two short-term samples
were obtained while this employee entered the flavor room to prepare
batches of liquid ingredient. During the first, the employee and
assistant added a powdered non-diacetyl flavor by placing the bag on the
edge of the tank, slit open the bag, and dumping the ingredients into
the tank. The second short term sample was collected while the employee
measured and poured liquid diacetyl-containing flavor to produce the of
liquid ingredient blend used in the baked snack food.

This employee wore ear plugs, safety glasses and protective footwear.

Production Operator B

Because the intended activity of Production Operator B was anticipated
all day, but eventually cancelled, the employee spent most of the shift
assisting in areas where diacetyl-containing ingredients either were not
present or were present only in unopened bags. This employee had a brief
period of potential exposure to diacetyl-containing ingredients while
using hot water in a sink to cleaning a mixer paddle coated with cheese
flavored seasoning. Production Operator B also helped other production
operators in the dough production area for less than an hour in the
afternoon. A short-term sample was obtained while this employee swept
the area of the enclosed tumbler area; however, the primary debris were
not associated with diacetyl flavors.

Operator B wore ear plugs, safety glasses and protective footwear.

Bystander (Safety and Health Visitor)

This visitor circulated to various locations in the facility where air
monitoring was performed or anticipated. The visitor did not handle or
approach raw dough or diacetyl-containing flavoring.

This visitor wore ear plugs, safety glasses and protective footwear.

Table 1.

Job Categories and Activities with Potential for Exposure to Flavors
That Contain Diacetyl

Food Manufacturing Facility D – Baked Snack Food Production

June, 2008

Job Title	Activities/Potential Sources of Exposure (percent of shift)

Production Operator A 	Monitors dough production and extruding lines
from computer console (80-85%). Walks the lines making visual
inspection. Picks up dough for evaluation (manual handling) (2%). Visits
Q/A lab to deliver samples (3%). Cleans/sweeps (5-10 %). Checks
liquid/flavor tanks (1%). Adds non-diacetyl flavor to tanks (1%). Adds
diacetyl-containing flavor to tanks (1%).

Production Operator B	Performed prep work setting up bag dumping hopper,
mixing tank, enclosed tumbler, and product drier - no flavor involved
(10%). Works with engineers and maintenance personnel (35%). In
administrative area (35%). Assists monitoring conveyer line in dough
production area – no dough handling (10%)*. Cleaning production areas
(5%). Cleaning cheese-flavor seasoning from mixer paddle (5%)*.

Bystander

(Safety and Health Visitor)	Observes other employees’ activities from
a distance. Dough/raw product production area (15%). Flavor room (2%).
Q/A laboratory (15%). Tumbler area (20%). Packaging room (2%).

* For Operator B, only tasks indicated with an asterisk involved work in
areas where diacetyl flavor was present.

Exposure Assessment

Sampling and Analytical Methods

Equipment

Sampling and analytical methods are summarized in Table 2. ERG used SKC
AirCheck 2000 sampling pumps combined with an SKC constant pressure
controller (CPC, part number 224-26-CPC) and SKC adjustable-flow single
tube holders to draw either 0.10 or 0.05 liters per minute. The pumps
were checked for calibration levels immediately before sampling and
again at the end of the period using Drycal DC-Lite Primary Air Flow
Meters (5 ml/min to 5000 ml/min), model 412360, manufactured by Bios
International Corporation, Butler, New Jersey.

Table 2. Sampling and Analytical Methods

Analyte &

Sample Type	Sampling & Analytical Method	Media	Air Volume	Air Flow Rate
Sample Duration	Notes/Special Handling

Diacetyl/Acetoin

Short-term samples

(15 to 30 minutes)

	OSHA Methods

1012 and 1013

[publication anticipated Fall 2008]	Silica gel

200/400 mg

SKC 226-10-3

(two tubes in series)	3 L	100 ml/min

	15-30 minutes	None

Diacetyl/Acetoin

Partial-shift samples (30 to 180 minutes)	OSHA Methods

1012 and 1013 [publication anticipated Fall 2008]	Silica gel

200/400 mg

SKC 226-183

(two tubes in series)	9 L	50 ml/min

	3 hours

	None

Air Velocity, Temperature, Humidity

(real-time)	TSI VelociCalc Air Velocity Meter (Model 9545-A thermal
anemometer)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	None

Notes:

L means liters.

ml/min means milliliters per minute.

SKC# indicates the brand and model number of sampling media.

N/A means “not applicable.”

ERG maintained all sampling media enclosed in appropriate size
semi-opaque plastic tube covers (SKC model 222-3XD-1) attached to the
tube holders. Analysis was performed by the OSHA Salt Lake Technical
Center (SLTC) Laboratory, Sandy, Utah.

All instruments and calibration equipment were factory calibrated within
the previous 12 months.

Limit of Quantification

The laboratory reported the numeric value that the analytical equipment
provided. ERG reports these results in Table 3 even when they are below
the limit of quatification (LOQ), believing they offer more information
about the approximate airborne concentration than would a blanket
description of “< LOQ.” ERG notes that while the values below the
LOQ area associated with greater uncertainty than results above the LOQ,
they may suggest trends that could be confirmed later using more precise
techniques (if available). For each result in Table 3, ERG indicates
whether the result is above or below the LOQ and reports the LOQ as a
part per million (ppm) value for each sample, calculated from the per
sample reporting limits of 0.609 micrograms (μg) per sample for
diacetyl and 0.667 μg per sample for acetoin.

Results for samples in which no analyte was detected are reported as ND
(“none detected”). In calculating averages, ERG takes ND to be equal
to 0 parts per million (ppm). The laboratory did not provide a minimum
limit of detection (LOD), since the actual measured values were reported
down to the level at which no analyte was detected.

Blank Samples

ERG submitted media and field blanks for each batch of sampling media.
No measurable background levels of diacetyl and acetoin were reported
for blanks.

Air Monitoring Results

Diacetyl and Acetoin

All samples were analyzed for diacetyl and acetoin; however, OSHA has
not published an exposure limit for either diacetyl or acetoin. For this
reason, all results are presented relative to each other, rather than
relative to a fixed standard.

Table 3 provides details of all PBZ and area samples obtained at this
site. ERG collected three consecutive partial-shift PBZ samples each for
Production Operators A and B. These samples were of 57 to 223 minutes
duration and analyzed using OSHA’s 2008 diacetyl/acetoin analytical
method (publication anticipated Fall 2008).

Two short-term exposure limit (STEL) samples were also obtained for
Production Operator A while this employee made additions to the
non-diacetyl flavor tank and then to the diacetyl-containing flavor tank
[simulated]. To give an indication of the airborne diacetyl in the oven,
packaging, Q/A laboratory and dough/raw product conveyer areas, an area
sample was collected in each location.

Diacetyl was detected throughout the day in the breathing zone of
Production Operator A. Detected levels ranged from 0.006 ppm (below the
LOQ) to 0.164 ppm – associated with a 57-minute sample that included
periods during which the employee was observed handling raw dough (for
quality checks) and performing activities associated with replenishing
the butter flavor/liquid ingredient tank. The overall time-weighted
average (TWA) (461 minutes) for the three consecutive partial-shift
samples collected for this employee is 0.0298 ppm (rounded to 0.03 ppm).
The unsampled portion of the shift was spent in an early morning meeting
in the laboratory (where no diacetyl was detected in an area sample
collected later in the day) and ERG assumes that no exposure occurred
during the unsampled period. Based on this assumption, the 8-hour TWA
for Production Operator A is 0.0286 ppm (rounds to 0.029 ppm). A
15-minute sample obtained while the operator measured and poured the
butter flavor was associated with a result of 0.139 ppm. It is not
immediately clear why this short-term result is slightly lower than the
57 minute sample.

Results for Production Operator B, who spent a substantial portion of
the shift assisting with activities in other parts of the plant, and the
bystander show that diacetyl was not detected in their breathing zones.

Diacetyl was detected at levels of 0.111 ppm in the flavor room tank
area and 0.011 ppm beside the raw product conveyer (the latter value is
below the LOQ). Other general area test results indicate that no
diacetyl was detected near the baking oven, in the packaging room, and
in the Q/A laboratory.

Acetoin was not detected in any of the samples collected at Facility D.

Table 3. Individual Air Monitoring Results for Food Manufacturing
Facility D – Baked Snack Food Production

Sample

No.1

Sample Type

Sample

Duration

(minutes)

Sample Volume

(liters)	Diacetyl Results	Acetoin results

Diacetyl

Conc.2

(ppm)

LOQ3, 4

(ppm)

Result above LOQ?	Acetoin

Conc. 2

(ppm)

LOQ4, 5

(ppm)

Result above LOQ?

Production Operator A

D-5	TWA	181	8.72	0.017	0.019	No	ND	0.021	No

D-6	TWA 	223	11.10	0.006	0.016	No	ND	0.017	No

D-11	TWA	57	2.90	0.164	0.059	Yes	ND	0.064	No

--	[Overall TWA for period monitored]	[461]	--	[0.0298]	--	--	[ND]	--	--

D-8	STEL	25	2.27	ND	0.076	No 	ND	0.082	No

D-14	STEL 	15	1.40	0.139	0.124	Yes	ND	0.132	No

Production Operator B

D-1	TWA	195	9.83	ND	0.018	No	ND	0.019	No

D-9	TWA	169	8.70	ND	0.02	No	ND	0.021	No

D-13	TWA	96	5.10	ND	0.034	No	ND	0.036	No

	[Overall TWA for period monitored]	[460]	--	[ND]	--	--	[ND]	--	--

D-2	STEL	30	3.10	ND	0.056	No	ND	0.06	No

By Stander (Health & Safety Observer)

D-4	TWA	180	9.75	ND	0.018	No	ND	0.019	No

D-7	TWA	220	10.14	ND	1.017	No	ND	0.183	No

	TWA for shift	400	--	ND	--	No	ND	--	--

Oven Area

D-3	Area – Between ovens 2 and 3, adjacent to conveyer turn-around –
product visible through oven opening	185	9.56	ND	0.018	No	ND	0.019	No

Packaging Area

C-3	Area - across aisle from package machines	257	13.51	ND	0.013	No	ND
0.014	No

Flavor Room

D-10	Area – wall behind tanks	190	9.60	0.111	0.018	Yes	ND	0.019	No

Q/A Lab

D-12	Area – bench top	194	9.66	ND	0.018	No	ND	0.019	No

Table 3. Individual Air Monitoring Results for Food Manufacturing
Facility D – Baked Snack Food Production

Sample

No.1

Sample Type

Sample

Duration

(minutes)

Sample Volume

(liters)	Diacetyl Results	Acetoin results

Diacetyl

Conc.2

(ppm)

LOQ3, 4

(ppm)

Result above LOQ?	Acetoin

Conc. 2

(ppm)

LOQ4, 5

(ppm)

Result above LOQ?

Conveyer

D-15	Area – control station	176	9.32	0.011	0.019	No	ND	0.02	No

 Notes

1       	Samples are listed by worker. Some workers were sampled more
than one time; as a result some of the sample numbers 	are out of
sequence.

2	Sample concentrations are based on the period monitored (i.e., the
sample duration). Samples were reported based on 	any amount of analyte
that was found; reporting limits were not considered.

0.609 micrograms (μg) per sample.

4	The values listed in the LOQ columns are the LOQ concentrations based
on reporting limits and the sample volumes.

5	The reporting limit (limit of quantification) for acetoin is 0.667 μg
per sample.

*An ND result was reported by the laboratory when there was no
indication of the analyte in the sample.

Temperature and humidity during collection of samples. D-5, -6, -11, -8,
-14, and D-1, -9, -13, -2, and D-10, -15, C-3: T=82˚F, RH = 41%; D-3:
T=94˚F, RH= 28%.	Abbreviations

Conc. =	Concentration.

LOQ = Limit of quantification.

ND = Not detectable.

TWA = Time weighted average (for period sampled).

STEL = Short term exposure limit.

Previous Diacetyl Air Monitoring

As mentioned earlier, an industrial hygiene consultant evaluated
diacetyl vapor levels in the Facility D flavor room in late 2006. A
30-minute general area screening sample was associated with a result of
less than 2.5 mg/m3 (below the limit of detection). The consultant used
this result to calculate an 8-hour TWA, reported as less than 0.16
mg/m3. No other diacetyl values were reported. Converted to parts per
million, these results correspond to values of less than 0.710 ppm (for
the 30-minute sample) and less than 0.044 ppm (calculated 8-hour TWA).

The table of sampling results from 2006 made available to ERG did not
list activities that occurred during the 30-minute sampling period or
the sampling and analytical method used to obtain the result.

Examples of Controls in Place

Overview

Most controls in place at Facility D are secondary benefits of workplace
conditions developed for other reasons (e.g., substantial heat removed
with the oven exhaust system creates a constant air exchange in the
adjacent spaces, including the dough production area). ERG noted that
the following existing controls (intentionally or unintentionally) may
help reduce the diacetyl and acetoin exposure of production workers at
the plant.

The oven exhaust system also exhausts the adjacent dough production
area. ERG measured an average of 300 fpm air velocity through 78 square
feet of wall opening between the two spaces (openings included man
doors, conveyer passage slots). This exhaust rate results in an
estimated 23,400 cubic feet per minute (cfm) of air exchange in the
dough production area caused by the oven ventilation.

The facility has an active housekeeping/sanitation program. Ingredients,
dough, and product rarely spilled and if it did, the volume was small
and it was cleaned up quickly.

An automated flavor/liquid delivery system meters the blended flavor
solution into the dough mixer from a tank. An employee must measure and
pour the flavor just once or twice per shift, rather than for every
batch of dough.

Other aspects of the dough/raw product lines are controlled remotely
from central computer consoles. This minimizes the amount of time
employees physically handle dough and maximizes the distance between the
employees and the dough.

Loosely covered flavor tanks limit air circulation at the surface of
tank contents.

Slight positive pressure in the Q/A laboratory minimizes the amount of
air/vapor from the dough production area that enters the lab.

A canopy ventilation hood that is fit closely (few inches gap) over a
tote of discarded baked snack food pieces in the oven area might capture
vapors (in addition to heat) if off-gassing occurs from warm baked or
partially baked, but rejected product. Note that an even tighter fit
(less gap), a wider canopy, or a different hood design might offer even
better protection if it is ever determined that vapor from waste baked
product needs to be controlled.

The tumbler and associated drier are both fully enclosed and fitted with
exhaust ventilation, again probably to control heat and possibly product
dust. These ventilation systems have the added advantage of potentially
reducing the amount of diacetyl vapor and dust/mist that could escape if
a diacetyl-containing coating were to be applied. ERG measured an
average air velocity of approximately 670 fpm into the tumbler housing
through the conveyer inlet (an opening of 7 inches by 10 inches, or
0.486 feet2). This translates to 325 cfm. A larger opening on the other
side contained a constant outflow of baked snack product, which
prevented accurate measurement. Nevertheless, ERG estimates that the air
flow into the tumbler housing may be at least 750 cfm and more likely
1,000 cfm.

Discussion

Relationship between Results, Sources of Exposure, and Controls in Use

General area diacetyl concentrations were greater in the flavor room
(where tanks were loosely covered and flavor was poured) than in the
dough production area. Sources of the airborne diacetyl detected in the
production area might have included air currents from the flavor room
and dough surface area.

Production Operator A, the employee who worked most closely with the
diactetyl-containing flavor, consistently had detectable levels of
diactyl exposure. As might be expected, the greatest exposure occurred
during direct handling (pouring) of the flavor product. The 15-minute
STEL (0.139 ppm) was obtained concurrently with the 57-minute TWA sample
(0.164 ppm), thus exposure from the flavor pouring task was captured by
both samples. During periods when the employee did not pour flavor, the
modest levels detected (below the level of quantification) might have
arisen from entering the flavor room to check tank levels or from the
same sources previously mentioned as potential sources of diactyl in the
dough production room. For example, this employee handled dough for a
brief moment several times during the shift.

It is interesting to note that the area sample result (0.011 ppm )
obtained at an empty workstation next to the conveyer carrying
diacetyl-containing dough was quite similar to the exposure levels
reported for Production Operator A during periods without flavor pouring
(0.017 and 0.006 ppm). All three of these results are below the limit of
quantification. No diacetyl was detected in the breathing zone of
Production Operator B, who spent less than an hour in the dough
production area and did not handle dough.

Notable air movement throughout the dough production area might have
helped keep exposure levels lower than they would have been if the air
exchange rate were lower, although the air flow direction from the
flavor room toward the oven room likely permitted some vapors to move
down the length of the production room. This flow pattern was driven by
dough production room air (an estimated 23,400 cfm) pulled as makeup air
into the oven room, which contained ovens fitted with large exhaust
ducts. Although a solid wall and closed doors separated the two spaces,
air moved rapidly through conveyer passage slots in the wall.

 Facility D is aware that, in response to customer concerns, where
possible many flavor manufacturers are reducing the diacetyl content of
butter flavors to the extent that they can. A facility representative
described anecdotal information about cases where food manufacturers
suspected or learned that the diacetyl content did not match the
percentage listed on the MSDS and instead was lower than the listed
value or range.

 If the flavor contains 1 percent diacetyl and flavoring usage is 10
pounds twice per shift, ERG estimates that daily diacetyl usage might be
0.01x20= 0.2 pounds per shift.

 These tunnel ovens are fully enclosed except where product conveyers
enter and exit, and at a “turn around” point at the far end where
product shifting to the return conveyer is visible through an
approximately 6 square foot access slot.  Each oven is exhausted through
the high ceiling by vertical ducts (approximately 24-inch diameter)
rising directly from the oven housing (top). The exhaust rate was not
available; however, the number and diameter of ducts suggests
substantial air rises out of this room. See additional notes in Section
4.1.

 The presence of turbulence and moving product prevented meaningful
evaluation of air flow into the housing through the product output
chute, which measured approximately twice the area of the intake port.

#

‰

è

Œ

é

-

!

"

#

$

%

A

B

C

D

#D

J

K

g

h

i

ƒ

„

…

†

‡

ˆ

‰

Š

‹

§

¨

©

ª

°

±

Æ

Ç

È

â

ã

ä

å

æ

ç

è

é

ê

9

:

;

<

=

>

j

k

l

†

‡

ˆ

‰

Š

‹

Œ

Ž

ª

j;

#ª

«

¬

±

²

Ç

È

É

ã

ä

å

æ

ç

è

é

ê

ë

j/

j¸

j¬

j

h8

h8

h8

hâ

gdâ

hâ

hâ

 h<

h<

h<

gd<

gd<

hâ

hâ

" híQ

" híQ

Ff

" híQ

" híQ

摧咙)

摧⼍Â

摧咙)

摧柭|

  h

 h<

, usage of diacetyl flavor was half or one-third normal and a flavor
addition was not needed this day. At the end of the shift the facility
arranged a realistic simulation that involved the employee measuring
flavor and pouring it through a funnel into a temporary holding barrel
(for future use) instead of into the tank. The simulated operation took
the same amount of time handling the same product as would have been
involved in the real task.

 PAGE   3

Site Visits Related to Diacetyl –Food Manufacturing Facility D


[Federal Register: September 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 55315]
[DOCID:fr10se10-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IN09-10-000]

National Fuel Marketing Company, LLC; NFM Midstream, LLC; NFM
Texas Pipeline, LLC; NFM Texas Gathering, LLC; Notice of Amended
Designation of Commission Staff as Non-Decisional

September 2, 2010.
    On January 15, 2009, the Commission issued an order in the above-
captioned docket designating, with certain listed exceptions, the staff
of the Office of Enforcement's Division of Investigations (DOI) as non-
decisional staff in deliberations by the Commission in this docket.
    By this order, the Commission amends the January 15, 2009 notice to
add Larry Gasteiger, Deputy Director, Office of Enforcement to the non-
decisional staff in this docket. The Commission also adds Norman Bay,
Director, Office of Enforcement, Larry Parkinson, Director, DOI, and
Geof Hobday of DOI to the January 15, 2009 list of staff excepted from
the DOI non-decisional staff designation.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-22514 Filed 9-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 85)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26001-26004]
[DOCID:fr03my06-28]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0307; FRL-8068-3]

Inert Ingredients; Proposal to Revoke 2 Pesticide Tolerance
Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revoke 2 inert ingredient exemptions from
the requirement of a tolerance because these substances are no longer
contained in active Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) pesticide product registrations. These ingredients are subject
to reassessment by August 2006 under section 408(q) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Upon the issuance of the final rule
revoking the tolerance exemptions, the 2 tolerance exemptions will be
counted as ``reassessed'' for purposes of FFDCA's section 408(q).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 3, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0307, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801 S. Bell St.,
Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the

Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The telephone number for the
Docket Facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Important Note: OPP will be moving to a new location the
first week of May 2006. As a result, from Friday, April 28 to Friday,
May 5, 2006, the OPP Regulatory Public Docket will NOT be accepting any
deliveries at the Crystal Mall 2 address and this facility
will be closed to the public. Beginning on May 8, 2006, the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket will reopen at 8:30 a.m. and deliveries will
be accepted in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The mail code for the mailing
address will change to (7502P), but will otherwise remain the same. The
OPP Regulatory Public Docket telephone number and hours of operation
will remain the same after the move.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0307. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at
the location identified under ``Delivery'' and ``Important Note.'' The
hours of operation for the Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Docket Facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions in Unit II. If you have
any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA is proposing to revoke 2 inert ingredient exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance because these substances are no longer
contained in currently registered pesticide products requiring
reassessment under section 408(q) of FFDCA. It is EPA's general
practice to revoke tolerances and tolerance exemptions for pesticide
chemical residues (which includes both active and inert ingredients)
for which there are no associated active registered uses under FIFRA,
or for which there are no registered products to which the tolerance or
tolerance exemption applies, or for tolerances or tolerance exemptions
that have been superseded, unless a person commenting on the

proposal indicates a need for the tolerance or exemption to cover
residues in or on imported commodities or legally treated domestic
commodities.
    The 2 inert ingredient tolerance exemptions subject to this
proposal are under 40 CFR 180.920 and are ``Ethylene glycol monomethyl
ether'' and ``Methylene blue'', the later of which is restricted to use
as a dye for formulations used on cotton. EPA is proposing that the
revocation of the 2 tolerance exemptions will become effective on the
date of the final rule's publication in the Federal Register. For
counting purposes, and based on this proposed action, 2 exemptions
would be counted as reassessments toward the August 2006 review
deadline of FFDCA section 408(q), as amended by FQPA in 1996.

A. What Can I Do if I Wish to Maintain an Exemption that the Agency is
Proposing to Revoke?

    EPA's records show that the inert ingredients subject to this
notice are not contained in any currently registered pesticide products
with uses that would require tolerances or tolerance exemptions under
section 408 of FFDCA. Parties who believe that EPA's records are
incorrect and that one or more of these ingredients are indeed
contained in a currently registered pesticide product are encouraged to
submit documentation to EPA in the form of the currently registered
pesticide product's accepted Confidential Statement of Formula. Parties
who know of a pending registration action for a product that contains
an inert ingredient subject to this notice may submit documentation to
EPA in the form of a copy of the Agency's letter confirming the receipt
of an application for registration or registration amendment for such
product. In addition, parties who are currently in the process of
developing a pesticide product containing an inert ingredient subject
to this notice may submit to EPA a letter asserting their intention to
apply for a FIFRA section 3 registration of said product within 2
years. This letter must include documentation of the inclusion of the
inert ingredient in the proposed pesticide product, such as a
description of the formulation's ingredients, and must confirm their
intention to submit an application for registration or registration
amendment within 2 years from the publication date of this Proposed
Rule.
    EPA is aware that inert ingredients are also contained in pesticide
adjuvant products which are not subject to registration under FIFRA.
The Agency does not keep records of currently used adjuvants or their
ingredients, therefore, it has been unable to conclusively confirm the
use of adjuvants containing one of these inert ingredients. Parties who
know of currently used adjuvant products that contain an inert
ingredient subject to this proposal are encouraged to submit
documentation to EPA in the form of the adjuvant product's current
label and/or documentation of the registration of the adjuvant product
with a State adjuvant registration program.
    Also, inert ingredient tolerance exemptions will be retained if the
tolerances or exemptions (which EPA refers to as ``import'' tolerances)
are necessary to allow importation into the United States of food
containing such residues. Through this proposed rule, the Agency is
inviting individuals who need these import tolerance exemptions to
identify those exemptions that are needed to cover imported
commodities.
    EPA will retain an inert ingredient tolerance exemption if the
documentation described above is submitted to EPA by the end of the
comment period as specified under DATES in this document, and the
Agency can verify the existence of a currently registered pesticide
product, a registration action pending at EPA, an import tolerance, or
a currently used adjuvant product that contains the ingredient in
question.
    Parties interested in the retention of any of the tolerance
exemptions subject to this notice should be aware that because these
ingredients are currently subject to reassessment under section 408(q)
of FFDCA, additional data may be needed to support retention of the
exemption. Reassessment activities for such ingredients must be
completed by August 2006. If the Agency is unable to determine that the
exemptions for these ingredients meet the FFDCA standard for
reassessment, the Agency will revoke the exemptions.

B. When Do These Actions Become Effective?

    EPA is proposing that revocation of these tolerance exemptions
become effective on the day the final rule revoking these tolerance
exemptions is published in the Federal Register. If you have comments
regarding whether the effective date allows sufficient time for treated
commodities to clear the channels of trade, please submit comments as
described under Unit I.B. Similarly, if you have comments regarding
these tolerance exemption revocations or the effective date of the
revocations, please submit comments as described under Unit I.B. Any
commodities treated with the pesticide products containing an inert
ingredient subject to this proposal, and in the channels of trade
following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section
408(i)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of
these pesticide chemicals in or on such food shall not render the food
adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) that:
    1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of
the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA,
and
    2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the
time of the application or use to be present on the food under a
tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was
lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the
pesticide was applied to such food.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to revoke specific
tolerance exemptions established under section 408(d) of FFDCA. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of
actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this
proposed rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866
due to its lack of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4). Nor
does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994);
or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not
involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration
of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether revocations of tolerances
might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and
concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This analysis was published on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), and was
provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available
information concerning the pesticides listed in this rule, the Agency
hereby certifies that this proposed action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Specifically, as per the 1997 notice, EPA has reviewed its available
data on imports and foreign pesticide usage and concludes that there is
a reasonable international supply of food not treated with pesticides
containing the ingredients proposed for revocation in this notice.
Furthermore, for the pesticide named in this proposed rule, the Agency
knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present
proposal that would change the EPA's previous analysis. Any comments
about the Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along
with comments on the proposal, and will be addressed prior to issuing a
final rule. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action
will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action
does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has
determined that this proposed rule does not have any ``tribal
implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is
defined in the Executive order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.'' This proposed rule will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: April 27, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

Sec.  180.920  [Amended]

    2. Section 180.920 is amended by removing from the table the
entries for:
    i. Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether; and
    ii. Methylene blue
[FR Doc. E6-6671 Filed 5-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4271]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1861]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 179

[HM-233A]

Special Permit Marking Removal

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Removal of obsolete Special Permit markings.

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

SUMMARY: On January 25, 2011, FRA published a Federal Register document
stating that markings on tank cars related to certain gross weight on
rail (GRL) Special Permits that had been incorporated into the
hazardous materials regulations (HMR) by a Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) rulemaking were required to be
removed or obliterated by January 25, 2012, or at each subject tank
car's first shopping event, whichever occurred first. This document
relieves tank car owners from that previously stated deadline and
extends the time for removal of the markings until the date of each
subject tank car's next required qualification.

DATES: January 27, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Alexy, Acting Staff Director,
Hazardous Materials Division, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mailstop
25, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Historically, the HMR, at 49 CFR 179.13, limited rail tank cars
transporting hazardous materials to a GRL limitation of 263,000 pounds.
Certain tank cars were able to operate in excess of that GRL limitation
if permitted to do so via a Special Permit issued by PHMSA. However, on
May 14, 2010, PHMSA published a final rule amending the HMR to
incorporate provisions contained in several widely used or longstanding
Special Permits that had an established safety record. 75 FR 27205. The
final rule amended the HMR to allow, upon the approval of FRA, certain
rail tank cars transporting hazardous materials to exceed the GRL
limitation of 263,000 pounds without the need for a Special Permit. On
January 25, 2011, FRA published a Federal Register notice providing
such approval for certain tank cars. 76 FR 4250. In that notice, FRA
stated that all markings on tank cars subject to the GRL Special
Permits that had been incorporated into the HMR by the final rule and
approved by FRA were required to be removed or obliterated by January
25, 2012, or at the car's first shopping event, whichever date occurred
first.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rail tank cars subject to the notice which were required
to have such markings removed were cars previously operating under
PHMSA Special Permits 11241, 11654,11803, 12423, 12561,12613, 12768,
12903, 13856, 13936, 14004, 14038, 14207, 14398, 14505, and 14734.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As background, the requirement to mark Special Permit packagings is
provided for in the HMR at 49 CFR 172.302(c). That section requires
that a tank car operating under a Special Permit must have the permit
number marked on the car (unless this requirement was waived under the
terms of a Special Permit). These markings are typically applied to
tank cars at the time of their qualification. Certain tank cars
exceeding the GRL limitation of 263,000 pounds were previously required
to operate under a Special Permit. Those tank cars were required to be
marked with the appropriate Special Permit number. However, upon the
PHMSA final rule incorporating the applicable GRL Special Permits into
the HMR (and FRA's subsequent approval notice) those Special Permits
and their corresponding Special Permit number markings on the subject
tank cars became obsolete.
    Since FRA's publication of the notice, FRA has received a number of
requests to extend the deadline for removal of the Special Permit
markings on tank cars subject to that notice. Such requests were based
on the fact that owners of large fleets of tank cars would have to
remove such cars from service in order to send them to an appropriate
tank car facility or a loading/unloading facility to have the markings
removed. Such a procedure could potentially be both costly to industry
and inefficient. The requesters also pointed out that loading/unloading
facilities may not be configured to allow for safe access to the
location of the existing markings. Finally, personnel at loading/
unloading facilities may not have the proper equipment or training to
remove or obliterate the appropriate markings.
    FRA recognizes the logistical and cost concerns regarding the
ability of the railroad industry to comply with the pending January 25,
2012, deadline to remove these now obsolete GRL Special Permit
markings. FRA also recognizes that markings are typically applied to
tank cars at the time of qualification, and that tank car facilities
performing such qualification inspections are equipped to safely access
all areas of the tank car and properly remove and/or apply required
markings. Also, the obsolete GRL Special Permit markings remaining on
the tank cars subject to the FRA notice do not represent a safety or
environmental risk. There is no risk as these cars were previously
permitted to operate at a GRL of greater than 263,000 pounds via
Special Permit, and the now obsolete markings merely reflected such.
The PHMSA final rule incorporated the applicable Special Permits into
the HMR, which alleviated the need for a Special Permit.
    Based on the above discussion, the absence of any safety risk, and
in order to avoid annual requests for the extension of the deadline
listed in FRA's January 25, 2011, Federal Register notice, FRA has
decided to extend the deadline for the removal of the obsolete Special
Permit markings to the date of each subject tank car's next required
qualification pursuant to 49 CFR Part 180.

II. Extension of Deadline To Remove Obsolete PHMSA Special Permit
Markings From Tank Cars

    Each rail tank car subject to FRA's January 25, 2011, Federal
Register notice (76 FR 4250) may continue in transportation with the
obsolete GRL Special Permit markings present until the date of each
car's next required qualification pursuant to 49 CFR Part 180. If a
subject tank car continues in transportation after the date of its next
required qualification without such marking being removed, FRA reserves
the right to take appropriate enforcement action.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 24, 2012.
Robert C. Lauby,
Acting Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-1861 Filed 1-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: June 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 32692-32693]
[DOCID:fr13jn07-121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55870; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-037]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Modify Order Audit Trail
System Rules To Provide an Exemption From Transmission Requirements for
Proprietary Orders and Amendment No. 1 Thereto

June 6, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 3, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been substantially prepared by Nasdaq. On June 4, 2007, Nasdaq
filed Amendment No. 1, which replaced the text of the original filing
in its entirety. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq proposes to modify its Order Audit Trail System (``OATS'')
rules to provide an exemption from OATS transmission requirements for
certain proprietary orders. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at http://www.nasdaq.com, at Nasdaq, and at the Commission's

Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq proposes to modify its OATS rules to adopt a limited
exemption from OATS order data transmission requirements for
proprietary trading firms. OATS is an integrated audit trail of order,
quote, and trade information for Nasdaq securities used to recreate
events in the life cycle of orders and more completely monitor the
trading practices of member firms.
    A ``Proprietary Trading Firm'' is proposed to be defined as meaning
a Nasdaq member that trades its own capital with all the trading being
done in the firm's accounts by traders that are owners of, employees
of, or contractors to the firm. Additionally, a Proprietary Trading
Firm does not have ``customers,'' as that term is defined in Nasdaq
Rule 0120(g) and is not a member of the National Association of
Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''). At present, there are no
Proprietary Trading Firms that are also market makers.
    Nasdaq also proposes to revise Nasdaq Rule 6955 to add that a
Proprietary Trading Firm, and persons associated with a Proprietary
Trading Firm, only upon request would be required to transmit order
data information for specific time periods stated in a request to
Nasdaq Regulation.\3\ Although a Proprietary Trading Firm would not be
required to transmit the order data information to Nasdaq Regulation
unless requested, it still would be held responsible for maintaining
and retaining the information in a format that could be easily
integrated into the NASD's OATS system in the event Nasdaq Regulation
makes a request for such information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 0130 provides that the term Nasdaq Regulation should be
understood as also referring to NASD staff, NASD Regulation staff,
and NASD departments acting on behalf of Nasdaq pursuant to the
Regulatory Contract. NASD Regulation has agreed to perform certain
functions on behalf of Nasdaq pursuant to a regulatory services
agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current requirement for Proprietary Trading Firms to transmit
all data order information is onerous and not offset by an equivalent
regulatory benefit. It is very expensive for firms to develop and
maintain the compliance systems and compliance staff required to
continuously monitor the daily transmission of OATS data. Additionally,
the transmission of OATS data often results in either rejections or
mismatches.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OATS rejections may occur for a multitude of reasons
including: Incorrect symbol; duplicate order event; cancelled time
stamp prior to order timestamp; canceled timestamp greater than
current date and time; issue is not reportable to OATS; issue symbol
invalid for order event date; missing or invalid shares quantity or
Buy/Sell code; missing or invalid member type code or issue symbol
ID; missing or invalid cancel quantity; missing time in force code;
missing or invalid firm order ID; and missing or invalid expiration
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Errors can result from a programming error even if it just a
misplaced semicolon. To cure these issues, members may need to spend an
inordinate amount of time correcting a minor glitch with NASD.
Mismatches occur when NASD reconstitutes the order and any
discrepancies exist between the order origination and order execution,
which may be different entities.\5\ Often times the discrepancy is of
very minor consequence, but triage efforts are overly burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Common causes of mismatches include: missing branch/sequence
numbers; improperly formatted branch/sequence numbers on one of the
reports; differing execution timestamps; missing reporting exception
codes and late reporting of OATS execution reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basis for OATS is customer protection through the transparency
of the executions of customer orders. The proposed rule change does not
impact this, since by definition, Proprietary Trading Firms do not
handle customer orders. OATS was designed to provide an accurate, time-
sequenced record of orders and transactions, beginning with the receipt
of an order at the first point of contact between the broker-dealer and
the customer or counterparty and further documenting the life of the
order through the process of execution. This requirement only came into
effect during the later stages of the OATS implementation. Also, as
mentioned below, no other exchange has a daily transmission requirement
for this category of customer.
    This approach parallels, in a much more limited manner, the
approach undertaken by the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') in NYSE
Rule 132C, which requires NYSE members, upon request, to transmit order
tracking data to the NYSE.\6\ The NYSE has stated that it has been its
experience that ``submission of data by request has proven to be
effective and efficient'' \7\ from both the NYSE's and its members'
perspective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47689 (April 17,
2003), 68 FR 20200 (April 24, 2003) (SR-NYSE-99-51).
    \7\ Id. at 20202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, much of the information retained by a Proprietary
Trading Firm is otherwise available to the Nasdaq

Regulation through Nasdaq's systems, and Nasdaq can use such
information and supply it to the NASD, upon request, as well. This
information includes trade reporting data, including order time and
sales data captured by the Nasdaq system.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-037 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-037. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Nasdaq. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-037 and should be submitted on or before
July 5, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-11369 Filed 6-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 29883]
[FR Doc No: C1-2017-10818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0523]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Applications for Food and Drug Administration Approval
To Market a New Drug

Correction

    In notice document 2017-10818 appearing on pages 24351 through
24356 in the issue of Friday, May 26, make the following correction:
    On page 24351, in the third column, under the DATES heading, in the
third line ``June 26, 2017'' should read ``July 25, 2017''.

[FR Doc. C1-2017-10818 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55357-55358]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-20-000.
    Applicants: Bendwind, LLC, DeGreeff DP, LLC, DeGreeffpa, LLC, Groen
Wind, LLC, Hillcrest Wind, LLC, Larswind, LLC, Sierra Wind, LLC,TAIR
Windfarm, LLC, East Ridge Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Application for Approval Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of Bendwind, LLC, et
al.

    Filed Date: 11/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20171115-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2236-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Power Transmission Arkansas, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing, Midwest Power
Transmission Arkansas, LLC to be effective 9/21/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20171115-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2237-004.
    Applicants: Kanstar Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing, Kanstar
Transmission, LLC to be effective 9/21/2015.
    Filed Date: 11/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20171115-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-294-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a Master JUA for
Distribution Underbuild with Allamakee-Clayton to be effective 1/15/
2018.
    Filed Date: 11/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20171115-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-295-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: EKPC NITSA Lock 7 DNR Amd to
be effective 10/16/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20171115-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-296-000.
    Applicants: Phibro Americas LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective
12/15/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20171115-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-297-000.
    Applicants: Enel Stillwater, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Enel Stillwater, LLC SFA to
be effective 11/16/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20171115-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-298-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-11-15_SA 3062 Ameren-
IMEA Switching Agreement to be effective 11/16/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/15/17.
    Accession Number: 20171115-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/6/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 15, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25152 Filed 11-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78798-78799]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27067]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-138-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of
Availability of Draft General Conformity Analysis for the Atlantic
Sunrise Project

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
the Clean Air Act, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission or FERC) regulations, Commission staff has prepared this
draft General Conformity Determination (GCD) for the Atlantic Sunrise
Project (Project) to assess the potential air quality impacts
associated with the construction of natural gas transmission facilities
proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC (Transco).
    The FERC staff concludes that the Project would achieve conformity
in Pennsylvania through the transfer of Emission Reduction Credits.
FERC staff will issue a final GCD to address any changes necessary and
respond to comments.
    The Project would involve the construction and operation of about
199.4 miles of pipeline facilities and appurtenant aboveground
facilities, including:
     185.9 miles of new natural gas pipeline in Columbia,
Lancaster, Lebanon, Luzerne, Northumberland, Schuylkill, Susquehanna,
and Wyoming Counties, Pennsylvania (58.7 miles of 30-inch-diameter and
127.3 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline);
     11.0 miles of new pipeline looping in Clinton and Lycoming
Counties, Pennsylvania (2.5 miles of 36-inch-diameter and 8.5 miles of
42-inch-diameter pipeline);
     2.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline replacements in
Prince William County, Virginia;
     two new compressor stations in Columbia and Wyoming
Counties, Pennsylvania (Compressor Stations 610 and 605);
     additional compression and related modifications to two
existing compressor stations in Columbia and Lycoming Counties,
Pennsylvania (Compressor Stations 517 and 520) and one in Howard
County, Maryland (Compressor Station 190);
     other modifications would be taking place at Compressor
Stations 145, 150, 155, 160, 170, 185, and 190 across Maryland, North
Carolina, and Virginia;
     two new meter stations and three new regulator stations
would be constructed and operated in Pennsylvania. There would also be
modifications at an existing meter station, and the construction and
operation of additional ancillary facilities would occur in
Pennsylvania; and
     in North Carolina and South Carolina, supplemental
odorization, odor detection, and/or odor masking/deodorization
equipment would be installed at 56 meter stations, regulator stations,
and ancillary facilities.
    In addition, the full draft GCD is available for public viewing on
the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.\1\ In
addition, a limited number of copies of the draft GCD are available for
public inspection at the local libraries in the Project area and at:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First
Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person wishing to comment on the draft GCD may do so. To ensure
that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to
issuance of the final GCD, it is important that we receive your
comments in Washington, DC, on or before December 5, 2016.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
docket number (CP15-138-000) with your submission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available
to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully
follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) Another way to file your comments electronically is by using
the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under
the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    For further information, contact Eric Tomasi by telephone at 202-
502-8097 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 3, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27067 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P