[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4315-4318]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02162]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0638; Product Identifier 2018-NM-016-AD; Amendment
39-19552; AD 2019-02-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.; Canadair Limited) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-11-03,
which applied to certain Viking Air Limited Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-
215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes. AD 2013-11-03 required repetitive
detailed inspections for cracking of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand
(RH) wing lower skin, and repair if necessary. This AD requires
repetitive borescope inspections of the LH and RH wing lower skin and
repetitive eddy current inspections of the LH and RH wing front and
rear lower spar caps. This AD was prompted by reports of a fractured
wing lower rear spar cap and reinforcing strap and a report of cracking
of the wing lower skin and rear spar. We are issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 22, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 22,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Viking Air Limited, 1959 de Havilland Way, Sidney, British
Columbia V8L 5V5, Canada; telephone +1-250-656-7227; fax +1-250-656-
0673; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://www.vikingair.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0638.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0638; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2013-11-03, Amendment 39-17463 (78 FR 32353,
May 30, 2013) (``AD 2013-11-03''). AD 2013-11-03 applied to certain
Viking Air Limited Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant)
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 2, 2018
(83 FR 37768). The NPRM was prompted by reports of a fractured wing
lower rear spar cap and reinforcing strap and a report of cracking of
the wing lower skin and rear spar. The NPRM proposed to require
repetitive borescope inspections of the LH and RH wing lower skin and
repetitive eddy current inspections of the LH and RH wing front and
rear lower spar caps. We are issuing this AD to address cracked wing
structure, which could result in failure of the wing.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2013-11R1, dated
October 16, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Viking Air Limited Model CL-215-1A10 and CL-215-
6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    While performing modifications on a CL-215-1A10 aeroplane, an
operator discovered that the wing lower rear spar cap and
reinforcing strap were fractured at Wing Stations (WS) 49.5 and 50
respectively and the rear spar web and wing lower skin were also
cracked. It is suspected that a crack initiated at the wing lower
spar cap, leading to its failure, the subsequent failure of the
reinforcing strap and cracking of the spar web and wing lower skin.
The damage was outside of the area addressed by the repetitive
ultrasonic inspections required by [Canadian] AD CF-1992-26R2 [which
corresponds to FAA AD 2012-11-04, Amendment 39-17067 (77 FR 32892,
June 4, 2012)] and was found 95 hours air time after the last
ultrasonic inspection.
    Failure and cracking of the above-noted wing structure, if not
detected, could result in failure of the wing.
    In order to mitigate the unsafe condition, [Canadian] AD CF-
2013-11 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2013-11-03] was released.
However, further analysis has indicated the need for repetitive eddy
current and borescope inspections. Therefore, Revision 1 of this
[Canadian] AD mandates a repetitive detailed inspection of the wing
lower skin using a borescope, changes the one-time eddy current
inspection of the lower front and rear spar caps to a repetitive
inspection and eliminates the one-time detailed inspection with fuel
bladders removed.
    The requirements of [Canadian] AD CF-1992-26R2 remain
applicable.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0638.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. The following presents the comment received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.

Request To Use Time-in-Service Hours Rather Than Flight Hours

    The commenter, Adam Geber, recommended using time-in-service hours
instead of flight hours in the proposed AD. The commenter stated that
maintenance hourly requirements are based on time-in-service rather
than flight time, as defined in 14 CFR 1.1. The commenter further
asserted that the term ``flight hour'' is not defined in 14 CFR 1.1,
and that many 14 CFR part 91 regulations prescribe hourly maintenance
requirements based on time-in-service, with no requirement to track
flight time for maintenance purposes.
    We disagree with the commenter's recommended changes, because
flight hours, which are in current use and well understood in the
aviation industry, are the most effective way of addressing the unsafe
condition identified in this AD. Flight hours were used in the
engineering evaluation for this AD, and the required actions of this AD
are based on that evaluation. The use of flight hours in this AD is
also in keeping with the previous related ADs, which use that measure
for compliance times and inspection intervals. Additionally, since
flight hours are used in this AD, operators are required to track them.
AD requirements are not restricted by the definitions in 14 CFR 1.1 or
the part 91 regulations quoted by commenter. We have not changed this
AD in this regard.

Explanation of Change to Manufacturer Name Specified in AD 2013-11-03

    We have revised references to the aircraft manufacturer name
specified in AD 2013-11-03 throughout this final rule to identify the
aircraft manufacturer name as published in the most recent type
certificate data sheet (TCDS) for the affected models.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the change described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Alert Service Bulletin 215-A558, Revision 3,
dated June 3, 2016. This service information describes procedures for
detecting cracks using repetitive borescope inspections of the LH and
RH wing lower skin and repetitive eddy current inspections of the LH
and RH wing front and rear lower spar caps. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borescope and eddy current         8 work-hours x $85               $0  $680 per inspection  $2,720 per
 inspections.                       per hour = $680                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2013-11-03, Amendment 39-17463 (78 FR 32353, May 30, 2013), and adding
the following new AD:

2019-02-05 Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Bombardier, Inc.; Canadair Limited): Amendment 39-19552; Docket No.
FAA-2018-0638; Product Identifier 2018-NM-016-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective March 22, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2013-11-03, Amendment 39-17463 (78 FR 32353,
May 30, 2013) (``AD 2013-11-03'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate
previously held by Bombardier, Inc.; Canadair Limited) airplanes
identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated
in any category.
    (1) Model CL-215-1A10 airplanes, serial numbers (S/Ns) 1001
through 1125 inclusive.
    (2) Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes, S/Ns 1056
through 1125 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of a fractured wing lower rear
spar cap and reinforcing strap and a report of cracking of the wing
lower skin and rear spar. We are issuing this AD to address cracked
wing structure, which could result in failure of the wing.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Repetitive Borescope Inspection

    Within 50 flight hours after the effective date of this AD:
Using a borescope, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the
left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) wing lower skin between wing
station (WS) 45.00 and 51.00, in accordance with Part A of
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A558, Revision 3, dated June
3, 2016. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
50 flight hours until the initial eddy current inspection required
by paragraph (h) of this AD has been accomplished. After
accomplishment of the initial eddy current inspection required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, the borescope inspection interval required
by this paragraph may be extended to 300 flight hours.

(h) Repetitive Eddy Current Inspections

    Within 300 flight hours after the effective date of this AD: Do
an eddy current inspection for cracking of the LH and RH wing front
and rear lower spar caps, in accordance with Parts C-1 and C-2 of
Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A558, Revision 3, dated June
3, 2016. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed
300 flight hours.

(i) Corrective Actions

    If any crack, as defined in Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin
215-A558, Revision 3, dated June 3, 2016, is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (g) or paragraph (h) of this AD:
Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the
Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil
Aviation (TCCA); or Viking Air Limited's TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspections
required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD

using Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A558, Revision 1, dated
January 10, 2014; or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A558,
Revision 2, dated January 17, 2014.

(k) No Reporting Requirement

    Although Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A558, Revision 3,
dated June 3, 2016, specifies to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or TCCA; or Viking Air Limited's TCCA DAO. If approved
by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2013-11R1, dated October 16, 2017, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0638.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A558, Revision 3,
dated June 3, 2016.
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Viking Air Limited, 1959 de Havilland Way, Sidney, British Columbia
V8L 5V5, Canada; telephone +1-250-656-7227; fax +1-250-656-0673;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://www.vikingair.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on February 1, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-02162 Filed 2-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 163)]
[Notices]
[Page 52049]
[DOCID:fr24au10-107]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62740; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2010-074]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Adopt Rule
4753(c) as a Six Month Pilot in 100 NASDAQ-Listed Securities

August 18, 2010.
    On June 18, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a proposed rule change to
adopt a volatility-based pause in trading in individual Nasdaq-listed
securities traded on Nasdaq.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62468 (July 7,
2010), 75 FR 41258 (July 15, 2010). On June 25, 2010, Nasdaq filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within thirty-five
days of the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule
change, or within such longer period as the Commission may designate up
to ninety days of such date if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, the Commission
shall either approve the proposed rule change or institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The 35th day for this filing is August 19, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change, which relates to
the adoption of a volatility-based trading pause in select Nasdaq-
listed securities on a pilot basis, and the comment letters that have
been submitted in connection with this filing.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates October 13, 2010, as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or institute proceedings to determine
whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By the Commission.

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21001 Filed 8-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35268-35269]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15835]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC18-11-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-585); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is submitting its information collection, FERC-585 (Reporting of
Electric Energy Shortages and Contingency Plans Under PURPA Section
206) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the
information collection requirements. Any interested person may file
comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments
to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued
a Notice in the Federal Register on April 12, 2018, requesting public
comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-585 and is
making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due August 24,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No.
1902-0138, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs: [email protected]. Attention: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be
reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC18-11-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at [email protected], or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-585 (Reporting of Electric Energy Shortages and
Contingency Plans Under PURPA \1\ Section 206).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PURPA = Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1979 (Pub.
L. 95-617, 92 Stat. 3117), enacted 11/9/1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0138.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-585 information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The Commission uses the information collected under the
requirements of FERC-585 to implement the statutory provisions of
Section 206 of PURPA. Section 206 of PURPA amended the Federal Power
Act (FPA) by adding a new subsection (g) to section 202, under which
the Commission, by rule, was to require each public utility to report
to the Commission and any appropriate state regulatory authority:
     Any anticipated shortages of electric energy or capacity
which would affect the utility's capability to serve its wholesale
customers; and
     a contingency plan that would outline what circumstances
might give rise to such occurrences.
     In Order No. 575,\2\ the Commission modified the reporting
requirements in 18 CFR 294.101(b) to provide that, if a public utility
includes in its rates

schedule, provisions that during electric energy and capacity
shortages:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Final Rule in Docket RM92-12-000, issued on 1/13/1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     It will treat firm power wholesale customers without undue
discrimination or preference; and
     it will report any modifications to its contingency plan
for accommodating shortages within 15 days to the appropriate state
regulatory agency and to the affected wholesale customers, then the
utility need not file with the Commission an additional statement of
contingency plan for accommodating such shortages.
    This revision merely changed the reporting mechanism; the public
utility's contingency plan would be located in its filed rate rather
than in a separate document.
    In Order No. 659,\3\ the Commission modified the reporting
requirements in 18 CFR 294.101(e) to provide that public utilities must
comply with the requirements to report shortages and anticipated
shortages by submitting this information electronically using the
Office of Electric Reliability's pager system at [email protected] in
lieu of submitting an original and two copies to the Secretary of the
Commission. The Commission uses the information to evaluate and
formulate an appropriate option for action in the event an
unanticipated shortage is reported and/or materializes. Without this
information, the Commission and State agencies would be unable to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Final Rule in Docket RM05-19-000, issued on 5/27/2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Examine and approve or modify utility actions;
     prepare a response to anticipated disruptions in electric
energy; and/or
     ensure equitable treatment of all public utility customers
under the shortage situation.
    The Commission implements these filing requirements in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR part 294.101.
    Type of Respondents: Public Utilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \4\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Burden'' is defined as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.

                              FERC-585 (Reporting of Electric Shortages and Contingency Plans Under PURPA Section 206) \5\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Annual number                                                    Total annual burden
                                      Number of     of responses    Total number     Average burden and cost per       hours and total       Cost per
                                     respondents   per respondent   of responses             Response \6\                annual cost        respondent
                                              (1)             (2)   (1) * (2) = (  (4)............................  (3) * (4) = (5).....    ($) 5) / (1)
                                                                               3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contingency Plan.................               1               1               1  73 hrs.; $5,767................  73 hrs.; $5,767.....          $5,767
Capacity Shortage................               1               1               1  0.25 hrs.; $19.75..............  0.25 hrs.; $19.75...          $19.75
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ...............................  73.25 hrs.;           ..............
                                                                                $5,786.75.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \5\ The estimates in this table are slightly different from the
estimates in the 60-day notice. In the 60-day notice we used wage
figures from 2017. In May 2018, we began using the 2018 cost
estimates. There are no other changes from the 60-day notice other
than the change to wage figures. The difference in the burden cost
is minimal. The burden hours remain unchanged.
    \6\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * 79.00 per
Hour = Average Cost per Response. This is Based upon FERC's 2018 FTE
average salary plus benefits. Commission staff believes that any
industry effort applied to FERC-585 would be compensated similarly
to FERC's average salary.

    Dated: July 18, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15835 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 6 (Friday, January 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1408]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-22-000]

Nevada Power Company; Notice of Institution of Section 206
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

January 5, 2015.
    On December 9, 2014, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL15-22-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation concerning the
justness and reasonableness of the Berkshire MBR Sellers' and their
affiliates' market-based rates in the PACE, PACW, Idaho Power, and
NorthWestern balancing authority areas. Nevada Power Company, et al.,
149 FERC ] 61,219 (2014).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL15-22-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00154 Filed 1-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57050-57054]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0400]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

[Docket No. FSIS-2011-0014]

Approaches to Reducing Sodium Consumption; Establishment of
Dockets; Request for Comments, Data, and Information

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS; Food Safety and Inspection
Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of dockets; request for comments, data,
and information.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) are announcing the establishment of dockets
to obtain comments, data, and evidence relevant to the dietary intake
of sodium as well as current and emerging approaches designed to
promote sodium reduction. FDA and FSIS are particularly interested in
research that will help both organizations understand current and
emerging practices by industry in sodium reduction in foods; current
consumer understanding of the role of sodium in hypertension and other
chronic illnesses, sodium consumption practices; motivation and
barriers in reducing sodium in their food intakes; and issues
associated with the development of targets for sodium reduction in
foods to promote reduction of excess sodium intake. Excess sodium
intake is linked to increased risk of heart disease and stroke. FDA and
FSIS recognize ongoing efforts by a number of members of the restaurant
and packaged food industries to reduce sodium and appreciate the
complexities of reducing sodium in foods. Continued input and support
from industry and other stakeholders are important to support further
progress on this significant public health issue.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments and data and
information by November 29, 2011.

ADDRESSES: FDA: Submit electronic comments and data and information to
http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments and data and
information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and
Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number FDA-
2011-N-0400.
    FSIS: Submit electronic comments and data and information to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments and data and information
to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, FSIS Docket Room, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Patriots Plaza 3, Mailstop 3782, Room 163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.
All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-
2011-0014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA: Richard E. Bonnette, Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-255), Food and Drug
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740-3835,
240-402-1235.
    FSIS: Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, Director, Labeling and Program
Delivery Division, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food
Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA,
FSIS, OPPD, LPDD Stop Code 3784, Patriots Plaza III, 8-161A, 1400
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Research shows that excess sodium consumption is a contributory
factor in the development of hypertension, which is a leading cause of
heart disease and stroke (Ref. 1), the first and fourth leading causes
of death in the United States, respectively (Ref. 2). Research also
shows that the increase in blood pressure seen with aging, common to
most Western countries, is not observed in populations that consume low
sodium diets (Refs. 3 and 4) and that the U.S. population consumes far
more sodium than recommended (Ref. 5 and 7). Moreover, dietary
reduction of sodium can lower blood pressure as has been demonstrated
in the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH)-Sodium trial
(Ref. 6). Because over three-quarters of sodium in the diet of the U.S.
population is added during manufacturing of foods and preparation of
restaurant foods, reduction in sodium consumption in the United States
involves reduction in the sodium content of food in the U.S.
marketplace (Refs. 5 and 7).
    In this document, we refer primarily to ``sodium,'' a component of
sodium chloride, commonly known as ``salt.'' Most but not all sodium is
added to food in the form of salt and we are interested in all sources
of sodium added to foods. The comments, data, and evidence regarding
sodium reduction obtained by the establishment of these dockets will
provide important information about current and emerging practices and
approaches designed to reduce excess sodium intake, primarily coming
from salt.

A. Sodium: Current and Recommended Intake

    According to national food survey data from the ``What We Eat in
America, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
2007-2008,'' estimated average sodium intake from foods among persons
in the United States aged 2 years or older is approximately 3,300
milligrams per day (mg/d) (excluding salt added at the table) (Ref. 8).
Most of this sodium comes from salt used in the manufacture or
preparation of foods (Ref. 9). In 2005, the IOM set a Tolerable Upper
Intake Level (UL) for sodium at 2,300 mg/d and an Adequate Intake (AI)
at 1,500 mg/d for those 9 to 50 years of age, including pregnant and
lactating women (AIs are lower for those 0-8 years of age and for those
over 50 years of age) (Ref. 1). The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans recommendations are to ``reduce daily sodium intake to less
than 2,300 milligrams (mg) and further reduce intake to 1,500 mg among
persons who are 51 and older and those of any age who are African
American or have hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease.''
The 1,500 mg recommendation applies to about half of the U.S.
population (Ref. 7). Current sodium intake is substantially higher

than what has been recommended by scientific and public health agencies
and organizations in recent years. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) reported in 2010 that over 80 percent of adults (>=20
years) recommended to consume less than 2,300 mg/d of sodium in fact
consumed more than 2,300 mg/d (Ref. 10).
    The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans also stated that ``Given
the current U.S. marketplace and the resulting excessive high sodium
intake, it is challenging to meet even the less than 2,300 mg
recommendation'' and that a concerted effort is needed to reduce sodium
in foods to help consumers meet the levels recommended (Ref. 7).
    An analysis of the potential savings from reduced sodium
consumption in the U.S. adult population found that reducing average
dietary sodium intake to 2,300 mg/d among adults 18 years or older
could have substantial health and financial benefits. Estimates showed
potential reduction of 11 million hypertension cases and an annual
savings of $18 billion health care costs (Ref. 11). Another assessment
on the cost-effectiveness of reducing sodium intake found that an
intervention achieving a reduction of 1,200 mg/d would save $10 to $24
billion in health care costs annually, comparable to benefits of
population-wide reductions in tobacco use, obesity, and cholesterol
levels (Ref. 12). Furthermore, this analysis found that a modest
reduction over 10 years of about 400 mg sodium/d would be more cost-
effective than using medications to lower blood pressure in all persons
with hypertension (Ref. 12).

B. Public and Industry Initiatives to Reduce Sodium Intake

    Since 1980, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have made recommendations
in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, including ``avoid too much
sodium,'' ``use salt and sodium only in moderation,'' and ``choose and
prepare foods with less salt'' (Refs. 7 and 13 through 17).
    FDA has supported these recommendations with a variety of
initiatives designed to promote informed choices on the part of
consumers. In 1984, FDA required that information on sodium be included
on the label whenever nutrition information appeared on food labels (49
FR 15510, April 18, 1984). In 1990, Congress enacted the Nutrition
Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), which mandated nutrition labeling of
food. In response to the NLEA, in 1993 FDA issued regulations requiring
the declaration of sodium in absolute amounts and as a percentage of
the Daily Value (58 FR 2206, January 6, 1993). FDA has also established
standards for sodium-related nutrient content and health claims (e.g.,
21 CFR 101.13; 21 CFR 101.14; 21 CFR 101.61; 21 CFR 101.74).
Furthermore, under section 403(q)(5)(H)(ii)(III) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act of 2010, certain restaurants and similar retail
food establishments must provide, upon request, written nutrition
information, which includes sodium content, for standard menu items.
Additional efforts by FDA have included consumer education initiatives
such as a joint sodium education initiative in 1981 with the National
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) as part of the National High Blood Pressure Education
Program (Ref. 18), and a November 29, 2007, public hearing concerning
policies regarding salt and sodium in food (72 FR 59973, October 23,
2007). At the hearing, there was general agreement that the levels of
sodium in food are too high, but there was no consensus regarding
approaches for reducing the levels of sodium in food (Ref. 19).
    FSIS, the agency responsible for nutrition labeling requirements
for meat and poultry products, also coordinates and collaborates with
FDA on nutrition labeling issues. In 1993, FSIS issued regulations
establishing nutrition labeling requirements for meat and poultry
products (9 CFR 317, part 381, subpart Y). These regulations, similar
to FDA's nutrition labeling regulations, required the declaration of
sodium in absolute amounts and as a percentage of the Daily Value on
the labeling of nonexempted meat and poultry products. In December
2010, FSIS issued regulations to ensure nutrition labeling of the major
cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products on labels or
at point-of-purchase, unless an exemption applies (75 FR 82148,
December 29, 2010). These regulations also require nutrition labels on
all ground or chopped meat and poultry products, with or without added
seasonings, unless an exemption applies. Thus, these regulations
increase the type of meat and poultry products that must declare sodium
in absolute amounts and as a percentage of the Daily Value in their
labeling.
    Other U.S. public health agencies and organizations have also
sought to inform consumers and encourage reduced sodium intake. In
addition to conveying the benefits of reducing sodium related to
hypertension through professional and consumer education activities,
the NHLBI published guidelines recommending a sodium intake of no more
than 2,400 mg/d dating back to 1993 (Refs. 20 through 26). More
recently, the CDC has provided funding to various states and
communities across the country in support of sodium reduction efforts
to help create healthier food environments and reduce sodium intake by
the population (Ref. 27). In addition, USDA, through the nutrition
programs of the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, promotes
consumer messages related to sodium reductions via the interactive,
web-based dietary assessment and weight management resources at
ChooseMyPlate.gov, as well as through its MyPlate 2010 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans consumer communications initiative and
Consumer Brochure.
    In 2008, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
initiated the National Sodium Reduction Initiative (NSRI), a
partnership of 70 local and state health departments and health
organizations, which has set targets to reduce sodium in restaurant and
processed foods (Ref. 28). The goal of NSRI is to decrease average
sodium intake by 20 percent over 5 years (2009 through 2014) by
developing stepwise reductions from 2009 base levels to those desired
by 2014. To-date, 28 companies have responded to NSRI, committing to
reductions in the sodium content of some of their products.
    These initiatives have been accompanied by efforts by industry,
where a number of companies have played, and continue to play, a
leadership role. Many food companies recognize that reduction of sodium
in the American diet is an important public health issue. Some major
food manufacturers have publicly committed to reducing the sodium
content of their products over time. Certain companies have voluntarily
identified specific product goals for sodium reduction. Many have
demonstrated that substantial reductions in sodium can be achieved in
certain food products and have established research programs to address
key issues such as taste preference, technological advances, safety,
and consumer acceptance in working through challenges and gaps in
knowledge.
    Other countries are also engaged in sodium reduction activities
(Refs. 29 and 30).

C. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies--Report on
Strategies To Reduce Sodium

    In April 2010, the IOM released a report entitled ``Strategies to
Reduce Sodium Intake in the United States.'' The report concluded that
sodium intake, with the greatest contribution from salt, remains well
above recommended levels despite several decades of education,
labeling, and outreach efforts to reduce sodium consumption in the
United States (Ref. 5). In the report, the committee considered past
and current sodium reduction initiatives, consumer preference, the
functional roles of sodium in food, research needs, regulatory options,
and nutrition labeling in developing its recommendations. The IOM
report acknowledged a number of complicating factors in reducing sodium
in food. Although sodium primarily plays a role in altering taste, the
IOM report noted that sodium chloride and other sodium-containing
ingredients play a critical role in food safety by reducing the growth
of pathogens thereby improving safety and shelf-life. In addition,
these compounds provide functional and physical properties such as
improving texture, controlling stickiness, and improving meltability.
Among other things, the IOM report noted that more research is needed
to develop and implement new technologies for sodium reduction and
discussed the role of voluntary action by industry.

D. Sources and Function of Sodium in the Typical Diet

    According to data presented to the IOM committee during the March
2009 public information gathering workshop (see Appendix L of the IOM
Sodium Report), approximately 75 percent of the total sodium intake for
most individuals is attributed to salt added as an ingredient or
processing aid to processed and restaurant foods (Ref. 5). Sodium in
the form of salt is added to food for many reasons. For example, salt
functions as a seasoning agent and flavor-enhancer, a preservative and
curing agent, a formulating and processing aid, and a dough conditioner
(Ref. 5). Salt added at the table and in cooking provides only a small
proportion of the total sodium that Americans consume (Ref. 9). A
number of other sodium-containing ingredients contribute to sodium
intake in lesser amounts (<1 percent) (Ref. 31). Some examples include
sodium alginate, which alters viscosity; sodium phosphates, which bind
liquid to reduce purge, in particular for solution-enhanced meat and
poultry products; sodium sulfite, sodium nitrite, and sodium benzoate,
which preserve food and inhibit microbial growth; and sodium lactate,
diacetate, and acetate, which are dual purpose for flavoring and
antimicrobial (pathogen reduction) purposes (Ref. 32). Non-sodium forms
of these ingredients, which replace sodium with compounds such as
potassium, calcium, and magnesium, are also available for some of these
applications (Ref. 31).
    According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), individual and
mixed foods contributing the highest proportion of sodium to the U.S.
diet include yeast breads (250 mg/d), chicken and chicken mixed dishes
(233 mg/d), pizza (217 mg/d), pasta and pasta dishes (174 mg/d), and
cold cuts (155 mg/d) (Ref. 33). The CDC reported that close to 40
percent of daily sodium intake comes from grain-based products, such as
breads, cakes, cookies, and crackers, and that almost 30 percent comes
from processed meat products, such as bacon, sausage, lunch meat,
poultry, and fish mixtures (Ref. 10). Sodium occurs naturally in nearly
all foods; however this intrinsic sodium is not a significant dietary
contributor for most Americans. Essentially, any single-ingredient food
is low in sodium.

E. Sodium Reduction Opportunities

    FDA and FSIS are considering potential ways to promote gradual,
achievable and sustainable reduction of sodium intake over time.
Research on a variety of issues, including the development of possible
targets for the reduction of the sodium content of foods, is needed to
assist FDA and FSIS in this effort. Sodium-containing food ingredients
are used for multiple purposes at variable levels in diverse foods. The
sodium intake of the U.S. population reflects both the sodium levels of
individual foods and the amounts of foods consumed. As such, there are
a variety of factors that may inform judgments about appropriate
opportunities for sodium reduction. These factors include:
    1. The important role that sodium has in food safety with respect
to limiting microbial growth and maintaining the shelf-life of some
foods;
    2. The effect of sodium reduction on the physical attributes (e.g.,
consistency, texture, shape, form) of some foods in ways that may
impact consumer acceptance or food processing and manufacturing
practices;
    3. The feasibility, practicality, and cost of reducing sodium in
various food categories;
    4. The magnitude (time and percent sodium reduction) of any gradual
or stepwise reduction effort;
    5. The need to act gradually in a manner that is acceptable to
consumers, while also achieving significant sodium reduction, because
taste preference for sodium is acquired and can be modified (Refs. 34
and 35).

II. Establishment of a Docket and Request for Specific Input on Certain
Topics

    FDA and FSIS are establishing dockets to provide an opportunity for
interested persons to submit comments, research, data, and other
information that will better inform them about current and emerging
practices by the private sector in sodium reduction; current consumer
understanding of the role of sodium in hypertension and other chronic
illnesses; sodium consumption practices; motivation and barriers in
reducing sodium in their food intakes; and issues associated with the
development of targets for sodium reduction in foods to promote
reduction in excess sodium intake. In particular, both agencies welcome
input on the following matters:
    1. Comments and research related to recent sodium reduction
initiatives by industry and the effects of those initiatives;
    2. Comments and research related to consumer understanding of the
role of sodium in hypertension and other chronic illnesses, sodium
consumption practices, and motivation and barriers in reducing sodium
in their food intakes;
    3. Comments and research related to effective strategies for
sustainable and meaningful reduction of sodium in foods sold in
packaged or prepared form across the food supply, including and in
particular foods with a high sales volume;
    4. Comments and research related to existing or potential positive
incentives for innovation in reformulating packaged and restaurant
foods to reduce added sodium;
    5. Comments and research related to the recommendations from the
April 2010 IOM Sodium report on ``Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake in
the United States,'' including research related to information gaps
identified in the IOM report (taste preferences for sodium,
technological role of sodium/salt, role of food matrix, food safety,
etc.);
    6. Comments and research related to the following: (a) Methods for
establishing sodium reduction targets, including information on general
target design (e.g., setting sodium reduction targets based on food
categories, serving size, or formulations), (b) step-wise

approaches to achieve sustainable sodium reductions and timeframes for
achieving such reductions, and (c) methods for evaluating the impact of
a sodium reduction strategy;
    7. Comments and research related to avoiding potential unintended
consequences for food safety, nutrition (including effects on added
sugars or solid fats), or food manufacturing technologies that could
result from interventions to reduce sodium;
    8. Comments and research related to existing voluntary sodium
reduction efforts, including the voluntary sodium reduction targets set
by the New York City-initiated NSRI partnership, and their
applicability to a potentential federal sodium reduction initiative;
    9. Comments and research related to food formulation, processing,
production, and other technology that could lead to meaningful and
sustainable reductions in the amount of sodium in food, including
specific food categories, targets, and methods to monitor;
    10. Comments and research on the role that food standards of
identity play in promoting or limiting the feasibility of sodium
reduction of foods (among other things, standards of identity for
certain foods define the nature of those foods, generally in terms of
how those foods are prepared, the types of ingredients that they must
contain (i.e., mandatory ingredients) and that they may contain (i.e.,
optional ingredients), and how those foods must be labeled (Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 341); the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 607(c)); and the Poultry Products Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 457(b)));
    11. Comments and research on any advantages of sodium to consumers,
including but not limited to, food safety, nutrition, and palatability;
    12. Comments and research on the economic impacts of reducing
sodium, including but not limited to, the cost of food, agricultural
production, small businesses, jobs, and the health care system;
    13. Comments and research on the impact of sodium reduction
initiatives on consumer food choices and compliance with 2010 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans recommendations;
    14. Comments and research related to how consumers respond to
sodium reductions (i.e., adding back salt to foods, consumption of
reformulated products); and
    15. Comments and research related to effective methods for
communicating to the public the health benefits associated with the
sodium intake levels recommended by the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans.
    We anticipate that some interested persons may wish to provide FDA
and FSIS with certain comments, research, data, and information that
they consider to be trade secret or confidential commercial information
(CCI) that would be exempt under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). You may claim information that you
submit to FDA and FSIS as CCI or trade secret by clearly marking both
the document and the specific information as ``confidential.''
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the specific agency's
disclosure regulations (FDA's regulations under 21 CFR part 20; FSIS's
regulations under 9 CFR part 390). For electronic submissions to http://www.regulations.gov, indicate in the ``comments'' box of the
appropriate docket that your submission contains confidential
information. You must also submit a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as confidential for inclusion in the
public version of the official record. Information not marked
confidential will be included in the public version of the official
record without prior notice.

III. Public Meeting

    A Federal Register notice will be published in the near future
announcing a public meeting to discuss the topics set forth in this
notice.

IV. Comments

    FDA: Interested persons may submit to FDA's Division of Dockets
Management (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments
regarding this document. It is only necessary to send one set of
comments. It is no longer necessary to send two copies of mailed
comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
    FSIS: Interested persons may submit to FSIS's Docket Clerk (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the FSIS
Docket Room between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Because two docket numbers are associated with this document,
please include with your comments the docket number that corresponds
with the appropriate agency. Comments submitted for inclusion in both
dockets should be separately submitted to each identified docket number
to ensure consideration.

V. References

    FDA has placed the following references on display in FDA's
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). You may see them
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. (FDA has verified the
Web site addresses, but FDA is not responsible for any subsequent
changes to Web sites after this document publishes in the Federal
Register.)

1. IOM (2005). ``Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, Potassium,
Sodium Chloride and Sulfate,'' Washington DC: The National Academies
Press.
2. Xu, J, Kochanek, KD, Murphy, SL, Tejada-Vera, B. ``Deaths:
preliminary data for 2007,'' CDC, National Vital Statistics Report.
2011; 58 (19).
3. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL
Jr, et al. ``The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on
Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood
Pressure,'' Hypertension. 2003; 42: 1206-1252.
4. Carvalho JJ, Baruzzi RG, Howard PF, Poulter N, Alpers MP, Franco
LJ, et al. ``Blood pressure in four remote populations in the
INTERSALT Study,'' Hypertension. 1989 Sep; 14(3): 238-246.
5. IOM (2010). ``Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake in the United
States,'' Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
6. Sacks FM, Svetkey LP, Vollmer WM, Appel LJ, Bray GA, Harsha D, et
al. ``Effects on blood pressure of reduced dietary sodium and the
Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet.'' DASH-Sodium
Collaborative Research Group. New England Journal of Medicine. 2001
Jan 4; 344(1): 3-10.
7. USDA/HHS (2010). ``Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, 7th
Edition,'' Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December
2010.
8. USDA, Agricultural Research Service. ``What we eat in America,
NHANES.'' Available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=13793. Accessed on August 30, 2010.
9. Mattes RD, Donnelly D. ``Relative contributions of dietary sodium
sources,'' Journal of the American College of Nutrition. 1991 Aug;
10(4): 383-93.
10. ``Sodium Intake Among Adults--United States, 2005-2006,'' CDC,
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. June 25, 2010; 59 (24): 746-
749.
11. Palar K, Sturm R. ``Potential societal savings from reduced
sodium consumption in the U.S. adult population.'' American Journal
of Health Promotion. 2009 Sep-Oct; 24(1): 49-57.

12. Bibbins-Domingo K, Chertow GM, Coxson PG, Moran A, Lightwood JM,
Pletcher MJ, Goldman L. ``Projected Effect of Dietary Salt
Reductions on Future Cardiovascular Disease.'' New England Journal
of Medicine. 2010 Feb 18; 362 (7): 590-599.
13. USDA/HHS (1980). ``Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 1st
Edition.'' Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
14. USDA/HHS (1985). ``Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2nd
Edition.'' Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
15. USDA/HHS (1990). ``Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 3rd
Edition.'' Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16. USDA/HHS (2000). ``Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 5th
Edition.'' Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
17. USDA/HHS (2005). ``Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 6th
Edition.'' Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
18. Derby, BM and Fein, SB (1995). ``Meeting the NLEA education
challenge: A consumer research perspective.'' In Nutrition Labeling
Handbook, edited by R. Shapiro. New York: M. Dekker: 315-353.
19. FDA. 2007. ``Public Hearing--Regulatory Hearing on Salt and
Sodium--Transcript, November 29, 2007.'' Available at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=FDA-2007-0545. Accessed on November 19, 2010.
20. Whelton PK., Adams-Campbell LL, Appel LJ, Cutler J, Donato K,
Elmer PJ, et al. ``National High Blood Pressure Education Program
Working Group report on primary prevention of hypertension,''
Archives of Internal Medicine. 1993; 153(2): 186-208.
21. NHLBI (1996). ``Implementing recommendations for dietary salt
reduction: Where are we? Where are we going? How do we get there?
Summary of an NHLBI workshop,'' NIH Publication No. 55-728N.
Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
22. NHLBI (1997). ``The sixth report of the Joint National Committee
on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood
Pressure,'' NIH Publication No. 98-4080. Bethesda, MD: National
Institutes of Health.
23. NHLBI (1999). ``Statement from the National High Blood Pressure
Education Program Coordinating Committee,'' http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/prof/heart/hbp/salt_upd.pdf. Accessed on
April 12, 2010.
24. NHLBI (2002). ``Primary prevention of hypertension: Clinical and
public health advisory from the National High Blood Pressure
Education Program,'' NIH Publication No. 02-5076. Bethesda, MD:
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
25. NHLBI (2004). ``The seventh report of the Joint National
Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and the treatment of
high blood pressure,'' NIH Publication No. 04-5230. Bethesda, MD:
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
26. NHLBI (2010). ``National high blood pressure education
program.'' Available at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/hbp/prevent/sodium/sodium.htm. Accessed on August 30, 2010.
27. CDC (2010), ``CDC Awards $1.9 Million for State and Local Sodium
Reduction Initiatives.'' Available at http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r101001.html. Accessed on August 30, 2010.
28. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (2009).
``NYC Starts a Nationwide Initiative to Cut the Salt in Restaurants
and Processed Food.'' Available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/cardio/cardio-salt-initiative.shtml. Accessed on August 30, 2010.
29. United Kingdom Food Standards Agency (2010). ``World talks on
salt reduction in food.'' Available at http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2010/jun/saltmtg. Accessed on August 30, 2010.
30. Health Canada (2010). ``Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada,
Recommendations of the Sodium Working Group.'' Available at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/sodium/strateg/index-eng.php.
Accessed on August 30, 2010.
31. Doyle, ME (2008). ``Sodium reduction and its effects on food
safety, food quality and human health.'' FRI Briefings. Food
Research Institute, University of Wisconsin.
32. Tarver T. ``Desalting the Food Grid.'' Food Technology. August
2010; 64(8): 44-50. Available at http://www.ift.org. Accessed on
August 31, 2010.
33. NCI (2010). ``Sources of Sodium Among the U.S. Population (2005-
2006).'' Risk Factor Monitoring and Methods Branch Web site, Applied
Research Program, National Cancer Institute. Available at http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/diet/foodsources/sodium/. Updated January
2010. Accessed on August 30, 2010.
34. Bertino M, Beauchamp GK, Engelman K. ``Long-term reduction in
dietary sodium alters the taste of salt,'' American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition. 1982; 36: 1134-1144.
35. Blais CA, Pangborn RM, Borhani, NO, Ferrell MF, Prineas RJ,
Laing B. ``Effect of dietary sodium restriction on taste responses
to sodium chloride: A longitudinal study,'' American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition. 1986; 44: 232-243.

    Dated: September 12, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy, Food and Drug Administration.
    Dated: September 12, 2011.
Alfred V. Almanza,
Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-23753 Filed 9-13-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 118 (Thursday, June 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36752-36755]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12375]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0152; FRL-10007-74]

Fulvic Acid; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of fulvic acid when used as an inert
ingredient (carrier) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops
and to raw agricultural commodities after harvest. Nutri Ag Inc.
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of fulvic acid when
used in accordance with the terms of the exemption.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 18, 2020. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 17, 2020,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0152, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or by one of the follow methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7505PM), Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email 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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0152 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
August 17, 2020. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0152, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of May 18, 2018 (83 FR 23247) (FRL-9976-
87), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11102) by
Nutri Ag Inc., 4740 N. Interstate 35 E, Waxahachie, TX 75165. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of fulvic
acid (CAS Reg. No. 479-66-3) when used as an inert ingredient (carrier)
in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and to raw
agricultural commodities after harvest. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by OMC AG CONSULTING, INC., the
petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No relevant comments were received on the notice
of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. . . .''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
can determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for fulvic acid including exposure
resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with fulvic acid follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by fulvic acid as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this
unit.
    Fulvic acid is a humic substance; other humic substances include
humic acid and humin. Humic substances are present wherever organic
matter is being decomposed and can be defined as ``. . . a general
category of naturally occurring, biogenic, heterogeneous organic
substances that can generally be characterized as being yellow to black
in color and of high molecular weight''. Humic acids are found in
soils, waters, sewage, compost heaps, marine and lake sediments, peat
bogs, carbonaceous shales, lignites, and brown coals. Due to their
properties, humic substances play a major role in soil fertilization.
Many products of different origins (peat, compost, leonardite) are
commonly used in agriculture to develop organic fertilization methods.
For several years, various products containing humic acids have been
commercialized for use on grass, horticultural plants or crop
production.
    In acute studies, exposure to fulvic acid resulted in no observable
or minimal toxicity. The acute oral LD50 in rats is >5,000
mg/kg. Minimal eye irritation was observed with New Zealand Albino
rabbits. Minimal dermal irritation was observed in an acute dermal
study with New Zealand Albino rabbits. No indications of sensitization
have been observed in hypersensitivity studies. A 7-day dermal study
was conducted with female mice in which no adverse effects were noted.
A 6-month oral toxicity study with female rats fed by gavage a dose of
100 mg/kg/day suggested that the product was nontoxic with regards to
liver and kidney function in rats. No other adverse effects were
observed at the study's conclusion.
    In a developmental toxicity study with rats, no adverse effects
were noted.
    Mutagenic activity was determined by the Ames test procedures using
Salmonella typhimurium TA100 and TA98. Humic acid, which is the
precursor to fulvic acids and used as a surrogate, was not found to be
mutagenic, nor did it decrease spontaneous mutations.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Based on available information on the fulvic acid and similar
compounds such as humic acid and humin, no toxicological endpoint of
concern was identified, and a quantitative risk assessment is not
required for these compounds.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fulvic acid, EPA considered exposure under the proposed
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

EPA assessed dietary exposures from fulvic acid in food as follows:
    Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to fulvic acid may occur
following ingestion of foods with residues from treated crops. However,
a quantitative dietary exposure assessment was not conducted since a
toxicological endpoint for risk assessment purposes was not identified.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Since a hazard endpoint of
concern was not identified for the acute and chronic dietary
assessment, a quantitative dietary exposure risk assessment for
drinking water was not conducted, although exposures may be expected
from use on food crops.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
    Fulvic acid may be used in pesticide products and non-pesticide
products that may be used in and around the home. Based on the
discussion above, a quantitative residential exposure assessment for
fulvic acid was not conducted.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA has not found fulvic
acid to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances,
and fulvic acid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced
by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action,
therefore, EPA has assumed that fulvic acid does not have a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding
EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Based on the lack of threshold effects, EPA has not identified any
toxicological endpoints of concern and is conducting a qualitative
assessment of fulvic acid. That qualitative assessment does not use
safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is
needed for assessing risk to infants and children. Based on an
assessment of fulvic acid, EPA has concluded that there are no
toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including
infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Taking into consideration all available information on fulvic acid,
EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to
any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure to fulvic
acid under reasonably foreseeable circumstances. Although there may be
exposure to residues of fulvic acid from use of this pesticide (as well
as other non-occupational exposures), the lack of toxicity supports a
finding of no harm. Therefore, the establishment of an exemption from
tolerance under 40 CFR 180.910 for residues of fulvic acid when used as
an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops
and to raw agricultural commodities after harvest, is safe under FFDCA
section 408.

V. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.910 for fulvic acid (CAS Reg. No. 479-66-
3) when used as an inert ingredient (carrier) in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops and to raw agricultural commodities after
harvest.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a regulatory action under
Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not
contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), 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).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S.

Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 15, 2020.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
 2. In Sec.  180.910, add alphabetically the inert ingredient ``Fulvic
acid (CAS Reg. No. 479-66-3)'' to table 1 to read as follows:

Sec.  180.910  Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions
from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Inert ingredients                 Limits            Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Fulvic acid (CAS Reg. No. 479-66-3)...  ...............                Carrier
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-12375 Filed 6-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31824-31825]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10567]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0051]

The Manlifts Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Manlifts Standard.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
July 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to
read or download through the website. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY
(877) 889-5627) for assistance in locating docket submissions.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and OSHA
docket number (OSHA-2010-0051) for the Information Collection Request
(ICR). OSHA will place all comments, including any personal
information, in the public docket, which may be made available online.
Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal
information such as social security numbers and birthdates.
    For further information on submitting comments, see the ``Public
Participation'' heading in the section of this notice titled
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, the collection instruments are clearly understood, and
OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of effort in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The Manlifts Standard (29 CFR 1910.68(e)) specifies two paperwork
requirements. The following sections describe who uses the information
collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it. The
purpose of the requirements is to reduce workers' risk of death or
serious injury by ensuring that manlifts are in safe operating
condition.

Periodic Inspections and Records (Paragraph (e))

    This provision requires that each manlift be inspected at least
once every 30 days and it also requires that limit switches shall be
checked weekly. The manlift inspection is to cover at least the
following items: steps; step fastenings; rails; rail supports and
fastenings; rollers and slides; belt and belt tension; handholds and
fastenings; floor landings; guardrails; lubrication; limit switches;
warning signs and lights;

illumination; drive pulley; bottom (boot) pulley and clearance; pulley
supports; motor; driving mechanism; brake; electrical switches;
vibration and misalignment; and any ``skip'' on the up or down run when
mounting a step (indicating worn gears). A certification record of the
inspection must be prepared upon completion of the inspection. The
record must contain the date of the inspection, the signature of the
person who performed the inspection, and the serial number or other
identifier of the inspected manlift.

Disclosure of Inspection Certification Records

    Employers are to maintain the certification record and make it
available to OSHA compliance officers. This record provides assurance
to employers, workers, and compliance officers that manlifts were
inspected as required by the Standard. The inspections are made to keep
equipment in safe operating condition thereby preventing manlift
failure while carrying workers to elevated worksites. These records
also provide the most efficient means for the compliance officers to
determine that an employer is complying with the Standard.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to
protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection, and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Manlifts Standard (29 CFR
1910.68(e)). The agency is requesting to retain the estimated burden of
37,800 hours. The total number of responses remains the same at 36,000
for the number of inspections certifications maintained annually.
    OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this
notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend
the approval of the information collection requirements.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: The Manlifts Standard (29 CFR 1910.68(e)).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0226.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 3,000.
    Number of Responses: 36,000.
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Varies.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 37,800.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); if your comments, including
attachments, are not longer than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA
Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or (3) by hard copy. All comments,
attachments, and other material must identify the agency name and the
OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0051). You may
supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically.
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
    Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY (877) 889-
5627) for information about materials not available from the website,
and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020
(85 FR 58393).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 11, 2023.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2023-10567 Filed 5-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


MEMORANDUM TO: 304( m) Record ( EPA Docket Number OW 2003 0074)

FROM: Cortney Itle, ERG DATE: August 23, 2004 SUBJECT: Cook Inlet Analysis EPA received 2001 and 2002 discharge monitoring report ( DMR) data for oil and gas extraction facilities in Cook Inlet, AK via an email from the Cook Inlet Keeper to Carey Johnston of EPA/ EAD on April 16, 2004. ERG used these DMR data to estimate pollutant loadings and TWPE for Cook Inlet facilities. The attached spreadsheet present the analysis.

Table 1. Estimated TWPE from Oil and Gas Extraction Facilities in Cook Inlet, AK Operator Facility 2001 TWPE1 2002 TWPE1 Produced Water Drilling Waste Total Produced Water Drilling Waste Total Unocal Anna Platform 243 243 173 173 Baker Platform 10 10 8 8 Bruce Platform 4 4 3 3 Dillon Platform 521 521 487 487 Dolly Varden Platform 0 0 0 0 Granite Pt. Platform 0 0 0 0 Granite Pt. Prod. Fac. 2 2 6 6 Grayling Platform 0 0 0 0 King Salmon Platform 0 0 0 0 Monopod Platform 0 554 554 0 398 398 Steelhead Platform 0 2,217 2,217 0 0 Trading Bay Trmt. Fac 9,198 9,198 9,521 9,521 XTO Energy East Foreland Trtmt Fac 195 195 195 195 Platform A 290 290 0 0 Operator Facility 2001 TWPE1 2002 TWPE1 Produced Water Drilling Waste Total Produced Water Drilling Waste Total Platform C 0 0 1,755 1,755 Phillips Oil Tyonek A Platform No data 0 0 Forest Oil Osprey PF NRs 0 217 217 Total 10,172 3,061 13,233 10,394 2,370 12,763 1 A zero indicates that the facility reported zero discharge to PCS. A blank field indicates that the facility did not report any toxic pollutants.