[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87998-87999]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29232]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land; Indianapolis
International Airport, Indianapolis, Indiana.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
proposal to change a portion of the airport from aeronautical use to
non-aeronautical use and to authorize the release of 16.975 acres of
airport property for non-aeronautical development. The land consists of
fifty-four (54) original airport acquired parcels. These parcels were
acquired under grants: 3-18-0038-24, 3-18-0038-38, 3-18-0038-39, 3-18-
0038-41, 3-18-0038-43, 3-18-0038-45, 3-18-0038-47, 3-18-0038-54 or
without federal participation. The future use of the property is for
commercial and industrial development.
    There are no impacts to the airport by allowing the Indianapolis
Airport Authority to dispose of the property.
    The land is not needed for aeronautical use. Approval does not
constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the sale or
lease of the subject airport property nor a determination of
eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
    In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title 49, United States
Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal Register
30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires the
property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA
Chicago Airports District Office, Melanie Myers, Program Manager, 2300
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> and Eric Anderson, Indianapolis Airport Authority,
7800 Col. H. Weir Cook Memorial Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46241; (317)
487-5135.
    Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or
mailed to: Melanie Myers, Program Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 East Devon
Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>/FAX
Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Myers, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, Telephone Number: (847) 294-
7525/FAX Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Tract 1

    Part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 15 North,
Range 2 East in Marion County, Indiana including Lots numbered 175,
176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207,
208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, and 220 and
parts of Lots Numbered 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, and 221, part
of Fruitdale Avenue, part of the first and second North-South alleys
East of High School Road, part of the East-West alley along the North
right of way line of the CSX Railroad, and part of the alley located
across the Southwest corner of Lot 174 in Arthur V. Brown's Second
Section Western Heights, an Addition to the City of Indianapolis, as
per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 15, page 152, in the Office of
the Recorder of Marion County, Indiana, the perimeter of which is more
particularly described as follows:
    Commencing at the Southwest corner (IAA Monument 13-0) of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 15 North Range 2 East; thence
North 00 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds East (all bearings are based on
the Indiana State Plane Coordinate system, East Zone (NAD83)) along the
West line of said Northwest Quarter 723.22 feet to the Northwest corner
of land described in Instrument No. 98-13698, recorded in said
recorder's office; thence North 89 degrees 07 minutes 34 seconds East
along the North line of said described land 35.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence continuing North 89 degrees 07 minutes 34 seconds
East along said North line and the North line of land described in
Instrument No. 95-59918, recorded in said recorder's office 425.00 feet
to the East right-of-way line of Fruitdale Avenue; thence North 00
degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds East along said right-of-way line 75.78
feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 201; thence North 89 degrees
07 minutes 34 seconds East along the North line of said lot and the
Easterly extension thereof 214.00 feet to the East line of a 14 foot
alley and the Southwest corner of said Lot 220; thence North 00 degrees
05 minutes 40 seconds East along said East line 120.00 feet to the
Northwest corner of said Lot 221; thence North 89 degrees 07 minutes 34
seconds East along the North line of said Lot 221 a distance of 50.00
feet to the Northeast corner of land described in Instrument No. 1997-
0051847, recorded in said Recorder's Office; thence South 00 degrees 05
minutes 40 seconds West along the East line of said described land
50.00 feet to the Southeast corner thereof and the North line of said
Lot 220; thence North 89 degrees 07 minutes 34 seconds East along said
North line 150.00 feet to the West right of way line of Vinewood
Avenue; thence South 00 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds West along said
West right of way line 621.64 feet to the North right of way line of
the CSX Railroad: Thence South 72 degrees 46

minutes 12 seconds West along said North right of way line 809.84 feet
to the centerline of a 14 foot alley; thence North 23 degrees 34
minutes 07 seconds West along said centerline 76.70 feet; thence North
00 degrees 05 minutes 40 seconds East 107.86 feet; thence North 15
degrees 58 minutes 15 seconds West 72.27 feet to the East right of way
line of High School Road (the following five courses are along said
East right of way line): (1) Thence North 00 degrees 05 minutes 40
seconds East 187.65 feet; (2) thence North 04 degrees 40 minutes 33
seconds West 120.25 feet; (3) thence North 00 degrees 05 minutes 40
seconds East 60.00 feet; (4) thence South 89 degrees 07 minutes 34
seconds West 5.00 feet; (5) thence North 00 degrees 05 minutes 40
seconds East 97.89 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 12.482
acres, more or less.
    Subject to all legal easements, rights of way, and restrictions of
record.

Tract 2

    Lot Numbered 199 in Arthur V. Browns' Second Section Western
Heights, an Addition to the City of Indianapolis, as per plat thereof
recorded in Plat Book 15, page 152 in the Office of the Recorder of
Marion County, Indiana, containing 0.275 acre, more or less.
    Subject to all legal easements, rights of way, and restrictions of
record.

Tract 3

    Lots Numbered 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, and 250
in Arthur V. Brown's Second Section Western Heights, an Addition to the
City of Indianapolis, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 15,
page 152, in the Office of the Recorder of Marion County, Indiana,
containing 2.872 acres, more or less.

Tract 4

    Parts of Lots 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, and 259 in Arthur V.
Brown's Second Section Western Heights, on Addition to the City of
Indianapolis, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 15, page 152 in
the Office of the Recorder of Marion County, Indiana, the perimeter of
which is more particularly described as follows:
    BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of said Lot 259; thence North 89
degrees 07 minutes 34 seconds East along the North line of said lot
140.18 feet to the West right of way line of Interstate 465 per INDOT
plans for Project No. IM-465-4(355); thence South 00 degrees 14 minutes
24 seconds West along said West right of way line 420.02 feet to the
South lien of said Lot 253; thence South 89 degrees 07 minutes 34
seconds West along said South lien 139.11 feet to the Southwest corner
thereof and the East line of a 14 foot alley; thence North 00 degrees
05 minutes 40 seconds East along said East line 420.000 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 1.346 acres, more or less.
    Subject to all legal easements, rights of way, and restrictions of
record.

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on November 16, 2016.
James G. Keefer,
Manager, Chicago Airports District Office FAA, Great Lakes Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-29232 Filed 12-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 154 (Friday, August 13, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44623-44626]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16973]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0050; FRL-8560-01-OCSPP]

Boscalid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
boscalid in or on tea, dried; tea, instant. BASF Corporation requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective August 13, 2021. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received

on or before October 12, 2021, 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-2020-0050, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marietta Echeverria, 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 EPA's
tolerance regulations at 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(g), 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-2020-0050 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
October 12, 2021. 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-2020-0050, 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. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of September 30, 2020 (85 FR 61681) (FRL-
10014-74), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3),
21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9E8819) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.589 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide
boscalid in or on tea at 80 parts per million (ppm). That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF Corporation, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received in response to the
notice of filing.
    FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i) permits the Agency to finalize a
tolerance that varies from that sought by the petition. Based upon
review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the
tolerance level being established and corrected the commodity
definition of ``tea'' to ``tea, dried'' and ``tea, instant.'' The
reason for these changes is explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

A. Statutory Background

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish 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 . .
. .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) and the factors
specified therein, 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 boscalid including exposure resulting from the
tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures
and risks associated with boscalid follows.

B. Aggregate Risk Assessment

    In an effort to streamline Federal Register publications, EPA is
not

reprinting sections that have not changed from previous rulemakings for
the same pesticide. On October 19, 2018, EPA published in the Federal
Register a final rule establishing tolerances for residues of boscalid
in or on multiple commodities based on the Agency's conclusion that
aggregate exposure to boscalid is safe for the general population,
including infants and children. See 83 FR 52991 (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0310).
Refer to the following sections from the previous tolerance rulemaking
for boscalid that have remained the same under the current risk
assessment: Units III.A (Toxicological Profile); III.B (Toxicological
Points of Departure/Levels of Concern); III.C. (Exposure Assessment),
except as explained below; and III.D. (Safety Factor for Infants and
Children). EPA has conducted an updated human health risk assessment to
evaluate the safety of the requested tolerances, which is limited to an
updated dietary exposure and risk assessment, and subsequent updates to
the aggregate exposure and risk assessment. See ``Boscalid. Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Establishment of a Permanent Tolerance
Without a U.S. Registration on Tea.'' (D456100, 04/01/2021), which is
available in the docket established by this action, EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-
0050.
    Updates to exposure assessment. EPA's dietary (food and drinking
water) exposure assessments have been updated to include the potential
additional exposure from the tolerance for boscalid residues in or on
tea, dried and tea, instant. The exposure assessments relied on
tolerance-level residues for all crops and an assumption of 100 percent
crop treated (PCT) as the October 19, 2018, final rule. Exposure in
drinking water and from residential sources are not impacted by the
increased tolerance on tea, dried and tea, instant because the
tolerances are without U.S. registration.
    Assessment of aggregate risks. An acute dietary exposure assessment
was not conducted because there were no observed effects attributable
to a single dose. Chronic dietary risks are below the Agency's level of
concern of 100% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD): 60% of
the cPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the most highly exposed
population subgroup.
    For the aggregate risk assessment, exposures to boscalid in food
and drinking water are combined with residential exposures for the
relevant exposure duration period. There is potential for short-term
aggregate exposure to boscalid via dietary (which is considered
background exposure) and residential (which is considered primary)
exposure pathways. The short-term aggregate margins of exposure (MOEs)
are 160 for children 6 to 11 years old, 360 for youth 11 to 16 years
old, and 130 for adults (LOC = 100), which are not of concern because
they exceed EPA's level of concern (MOEs less than or equal to 100).
    A separate cancer dietary assessment was not conducted since
boscalid was classified by the Cancer Assessment Review Committee
(CARC) as ``suggestive evidence of carcinogenicity''; and the chronic
exposure assessment is protective of any cancer risks. Therefore, based
on the chronic exposure assessment, which accounts for potential
carcinogenicity, EPA does not expect boscalid to pose a cancer risk.

C. Determination of Safety

    Therefore, based on the risk assessments and information described
above, EPA concludes there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to the general population, or to infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to boscalid residues. More detailed information
about the Agency's analysis can be found in the document entitled,
``Boscalid. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Establishment of a
Permanent Tolerance Without a U.S. Registration on Tea.'' (D456100, 04/
01/2021) by going to http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate methods exist for both plants and livestock. In plants,
the parent residue is extracted using an aqueous organic solvent
mixture followed by liquid/liquid partitioning and a column clean up.
Quantitation is by gas chromatography using mass spectrometry (GC/MS)
or liquid chromatography in tandem with mass spectrometric detection
(LC/MS/MS). In livestock, the residues are extracted with methanol. The
extract is treated with enzymes in order to release the conjugated
glucuronic acid metabolite. The residues are then isolated by liquid/
liquid partition followed by column chromatography. The hydroxylated
metabolite is acetylated followed by a column clean-up. The parent and
acetylated metabolite are quantitated by gas chromatography with
electron capture detection.
    Adequate enforcement methodology, extraction using an aqueous
organic solvent mixture followed by liquid/liquid partitioning and a
column clean up with quantitation by gas chromatography using mass
spectrometry (GC/MS) or liquid chromatography in tandem with mass
spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS), is available to enforce the
tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established a MRL for boscalid. Taiwan has an MRL for residues of
boscalid in/on dried tea leaves at 10 ppm, and Japan has an MRL of
residues of boscalid in/on dried tea leaves at 60 ppm. The tolerance
expression for Taiwan and Japan are harmonized with the US tolerance
definition in crops as parent boscalid only but do not metabolites and
degradates. All international MRLs fall below the calculated tolerance
value of 70 ppm.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The petitioned-for tolerance for residues on the commodity tea at
80 ppm is revised so that there will be two separate tolerances for
residues on tea, dried and tea, instant each at 70 ppm and corrected
commodity definitions. The tolerance is also revised pursuant to a
difference in how the tolerances are calculated. The registrant
calculated a processing factor for dried black tea as 4.1x and used the
field trial values from the fresh leaves at 7-days. EPA determined the
processing factor to be no greater than 2.54x and extrapolated the 7-
day residues for black tea based on the combination of the processing
factor and the decline trend for fresh leaves.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of boscalid, in
or on Tea, dried; and Tea, instant at 70 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances 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). 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).

VII. 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: August 2, 2021.
Marietta Echeverria,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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.  180.589 amend the table in paragraph (a)(1) by adding in
alphabetical order entries for ``Tea, dried\2\'' and ``Tea, instant
\2\'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.589   Boscalid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ There are no U.S. registrations for these commodities as of
August 13, 2021.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Tea, dried \2\..............................................          70
Tea, instant \2\............................................          70

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-16973 Filed 8-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From: "Jason Pence"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: 08/13/2008 04:10 PM
To Jeff Telander/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Cc "Garth Tayler"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Acme Brick - Cover letter

Mr. Telander,

I mistakenly omitted the cover letter (attached) from the email submittal this morning.

Thank you,
Jason Pence
Acme Brick Company

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:08 PM
To: Jason Pence
Subject: Attached Image

 (See attached file: 2783_001.pdf)

From" "Jason Pence"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: 08/13/2008 11:13 AM
To: Jeff Telander/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Cc: "Garth Tayler"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Ed Watson"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Acme Brick Company - ICR

Mr. Telander,

Please find attached the completed electronic copy of the BSCP ICR.
Note that due to the confidential content in Form F, it was submitted on hard copy only (to your attention) and labeled confidential business information.  A hard copy of all forms and stack test data was submitted to your office as well.

Acme looks forward to working with the EPA during the MACT development process.

If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please call me at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Sincerely,

Jason Pence
Environmental Manager
Acme Brick Company

(See attached file: Brick ICR- Acme- Final.xls)


 From: "Rick Mihelic"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> To: Arvon Mitcham/AA/USEPA/US@EPA  Cc: Cleophas Jackson/AA/USEPA/US@EPA  Date: 07/01/2011 05:19 PM  Subject: NPRM aerodynamics via CFD

One of the items from the GHG aerodynamics discussion that we did not get to review was the requirements for CFD.   We are reviewing one item in particular, in the 1037.510 section the rules indicate   (2) For Lattice-Boltzman based CFD code, perform an unstructured, time accurate analysis with a mesh grid size with total surface elements of at least fifty million cells using cubic volume elements and triangular and/or quadrilateral surface elements, a cell size of less than or equal to 1 mm on the vehicle surface and near wall boundaries.   I've  requested Exa provide us background on their industry experience with size.  Our experience is that 5mm is accurate and used in key areas of the vehicle.     This requirement would significantly increase the cost, time and speed of analyses to support CFD use for GHG certification.   Due to the holiday weekend, I'm not able to provide you better detail today, but I will on Tuesday.       Rick Mihelic Manager Vehicle Performance & Engineering Analysis  Peterbilt Motors Company 3200 Airport Road, Denton, Texas 76207 940-566-7694 <EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56323-56324]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24651]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0068; FRL-9986-05-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Primary Lead Smelting (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Primary Lead Smelting
(EPA ICR No. 1856.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0414), to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through November 30, 2018. Public comments
were previously requested, via the Federal Register on June 29, 2017,
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency
may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 13,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0068, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to [email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Primary Lead Smelting apply to existing and new
facilities engaged in producing lead metal from ore concentrates. The
category includes, but is not limited to, the following smelting
processes: Sintering, reduction, preliminary treatment, refining and
casting operations, process fugitive sources, and fugitive dust
sources. New facilities include those that commenced construction or
reconstruction after the date of proposal. In general, all NESHAP
standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and
periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities.
They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and
duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of
an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system
is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential
in determining compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart TTT.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities engaged in primary lead
processing.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart TTT).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 6,270 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $855,000 (per year), which includes $169,000
in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase of 5
hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR
currently approved by OMB. This increase is due to rounding of the
total estimated burden to three significant digits.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-24651 Filed 11-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6662-6663]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02979]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82664; File No. SR-CBOE-2018-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
to the Options Regulatory Fee

February 8, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 31, 2018, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange seeks to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to decrease the Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF'') from $.0081 per contract to $.0049 per contract in order to
help ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with
other regulatory fees and fines, meets the Exchange's total regulatory
costs. The proposed fee change will be operative on February 1, 2018.
    The ORF is assessed by Cboe Options to each Trading Permit Holder
(``TPH'') for options transactions cleared by the TPH that are cleared
by the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the customer range,
regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs.\3\ In other
words, the Exchange imposes the ORF on all customer-range transactions
cleared by a TPH, even if the transactions do not take place on the
Exchange. The ORF is collected by OCC on behalf of the Exchange from
the Clearing Trading Permit Holder (``CTPH'') or non-CTPH that
ultimately clears the transaction. With respect to linkage
transactions, Cboe Options reimburses its routing broker providing
Routing Services pursuant to Cboe Options Rule 6.14B for options
regulatory fees it incurs in connection with the Routing Services it
provides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The ORF also applies to customer-range transactions executed
during Extended Trading Hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Revenue generated from ORF, when combined with all of the
Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, is designed to recover a
material portion of the regulatory costs to the Exchange of the
supervision and regulation of TPH customer options business. Regulatory
costs include direct regulatory expenses and certain indirect expenses
for work allocated in support of the regulatory function. The direct
expenses include in-house and third party service provider costs to
support the day to day regulatory work such as surveillances,
investigations and examinations. The indirect expenses include support
from such areas as human resources, legal, information technology and
accounting. These indirect expenses are estimated to be approximately
10% of Cboe Options' total regulatory costs for 2018. Thus, direct
expenses are estimated to be approximately 90% of total regulatory
costs for 2018. In addition, it is Cboe Options' practice that revenue
generated from ORF not exceed more than 75% of total annual regulatory
costs. These expectations are estimated, preliminary and may change.
These expectations are estimated, preliminary and may change. [sic]
There can be no assurance that our final costs for 2018 will not differ
materially from these expectations and prior practice; however, the
Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined
with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will cover
a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory costs.
    The Exchange also notes that its regulatory responsibilities with
respect to TPH compliance with options sales practice rules have
largely been allocated to FINRA under a 17d-2 agreement.\4\ The ORF is
not designed to cover the cost of that options sales practice
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76309 (October 29,
2015), 80 FR 68361 (November 4, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total
regulatory costs. The Exchange monitors its regulatory costs and
revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange
determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a
material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the
ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. The Exchange
notifies

TPHs of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular. The Exchange
endeavors to provide TPHs with such notice at least 30 calendar days
prior to the effective date of the change.
    The Exchange also proposes a minor clean up change to the Fees
Schedule. Specifically, currently the ORF description mistakenly
references footnote 45. The description will be amended to reference
footnote 46, which was the Exchange's original intention.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\6\ which provides that Exchange rules may provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its TPHs and other persons using its facilities.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable because
it would help ensure that revenue collected from the ORF, in
combination with other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the
Exchange's total regulatory costs. Moreover, the Exchange believes the
ORF ensures fairness by assessing higher fees to those TPHs that
require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of
customer options business they conduct. Regulating customer trading
activity is much more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure
of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading
activity, which tends to be more automated and less labor-intensive. As
a result, the costs associated with administering the customer
component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are materially
higher than the costs associated with administering the non-customer
component (e.g., TPH proprietary transactions) of its regulatory
program.\8\ The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory in that it is charged to all TPHs on
all their transactions that clear in the customer range at the OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ If the Exchange changes its method of funding regulation or
if circumstances otherwise change in the future, the Exchange may
decide to modify the ORF or assess a separate regulatory fee on TPH
proprietary transactions if the Exchange deems it advisable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because it applies to all
TPHs. The proposed ORF is comparable to fees charged by other options
exchanges for the same or similar service. The Exchange believes any
burden on competition imposed by the proposed rule change is outweighed
by the need to help the Exchange adequately fund its regulatory
activities to ensure compliance with the Exchange Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \10\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File No. SR-CBOE-2018-014 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2018-014. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2018-014, and should be submitted on
or before March 7, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-02979 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3151-3152]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01010]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0748]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0047

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0047, Plan
Approval and Records for Vital System Automation. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by
OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our
performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or February 19,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2015-0748] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave. SE., Stop 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2015-0748], and must be received by February 19,
2016.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0047.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (80 FR 59802, October 2, 2015)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Plan Approval and Records for Vital System Automation.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0047.
    Summary: This collection pertains to the vital system automation on
commercial vessels that is necessary to

protect personnel and property on board U.S.-Flag vessels.
    Need: 46 U.S.C. 3306 authorizes the Coast Guard to promulgate
regulations for the safety of personnel and property on board vessels.
Various sections within parts 61 and 62 of Title 46 of the Code of
Federal Regulations contain these rules.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners, operations, shipyards, designers, and
manufacturers of certain vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from
39,900 hours to 46,500 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated
annual number of responses.

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

    Dated: January 12, 2016.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-01010 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


QUESTIONS YOUR RESPONSE 1. Number of CWISs: 2 in leg 1, 1 in leg 3 ( J tubes)

2. Brief description of each CWIS ( e. g., sea chest, simple pipe): Simple pipe 3. Rough dimensions of each CWIS and indicate whether CWIS has existing flange: 12 inch 4. Screen type ( e. g., strainer, wedge wire) with mesh size: None at J tube, wire at pump 5. Total daily maximum design water intake volumn of each CWIS: 2 at 3000 gal/ min, 1 at 2000 gpm typically run 2 big at a time ( 6000 gpm)

6. Total daily water intake volume of each CWIS ( set up/ drilling): 5000 gpm ( typically run the two 3000 gpm at 2500 gpm)

7. Total daily cooling water intake volume of each CWIS ( set up/ drilling): 5000 gpm ( all used for cooling then to waterflood)

8. Design through screen velocity of each CWIS ( i. e., Q= V* A) ( set up/ drilling): 7.1 ft/ sec ( based on 2500 gpm through 12 inch tube)

9. List purposes of cooling water intake ( e. g., cool crude oil, produced water, power generators, drill pipe brakes): Gas compressor heat exchangers ( fuel burning equipment)

10. List purposes of non cooling water intakes ( e. g., fire, water, hotel loads) other than ballast water: Waterflood, firewater if needed 11. Total volume of water intake for ballasting, duration of ballast intake, and through screen velocity of ballast intake: None 12. Describe mitigation measures used for reducing impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms ( e. g., sea chest screens, strainers): None 13. Describe measures used to reduce or prevent biofouling: None 14. Describe mitigation measures used for reducing exotic species migration through ballast water: NA OCS Lease and Block: Platform Name: Grayling Platform COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE ( CWIS) INFORMATION The following questions apply to cooling water intake structure( s) at oil and gas extraction facility. If you own more than one facilty, please copy the questions and answer separately for each facility.

Prospect or Field Name: Company: Unocal


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 203 (Wednesday, October 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63799-63802]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26671]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2126]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Evaluation of the
Food and Drug Administration's Campaign To Reduce Tobacco Use Among
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Young Adults

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
November 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the title ``Evaluation of the Food
and Drug Administration's Campaign to Reduce Tobacco Use Among Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Young Adults''. Also include the FDA
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

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

Evaluation of FDA's Campaign To Reduce Tobacco Use Among Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender Young Adults--OMB Control Number 0910--New

    The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco
Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) amended the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) to grant FDA authority to regulate the
manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect
public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors. Section
1003(d)(2)(D) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(D)) supports the
development and implementation of FDA public education campaigns
related to tobacco use. Accordingly, FDA is currently developing and
implementing public education campaigns to help prevent and reduce
tobacco use among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) young
adults and thereby reduce the public health burden of tobacco. Overall
the campaigns will feature events; advertisements on television and
radio and in print; digital communications including social media; and
other forms of media.
    In support of the provisions of the Tobacco Control Act that
require FDA to protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use, FDA
requests OMB approval to collect information needed to evaluate FDA's
campaign to reduce tobacco use among LGBT young adults. Comprehensive
evaluation of FDA's public education campaigns is needed to ensure
campaign messages are effectively received, understood, and accepted by
those for whom they are intended. Evaluation is an essential
organizational practice in public health and a systematic way to
account for and improve public health actions.
    FDA plans to conduct two studies to evaluate the effectiveness of
its LGBT young adult tobacco prevention campaign: (1) An outcome
evaluation study to evaluate the effectiveness of its LGBT young adult
tobacco prevention campaign, and (2) a media tracking questionnaire to
assess awareness of and receptivity to campaign messages. The timing of
these studies will be designed to follow the multiple, discrete waves
of media advertising planned for the campaigns.

I. Outcome Evaluation Study

    Before the beginning of data collection for the outcome evaluation
study, the 5-minute screening instrument will be tested in a small
pilot study of LGBT young adults aged 18 to 24. The outcome evaluation
study will then begin with a baseline survey of LGBT young adults aged
18 to 24 before the campaign launch. The baseline will be followed by
three followup surveys of the target audience of young adults at
approximately 6-month intervals after the campaign's launch.
Information will be collected

about young adult awareness of and exposure to campaign events and
advertisements and about tobacco-related knowledge, attitudes, beliefs,
intentions and use, as well as use of other tobacco products (e-
cigarettes, hookah, cigars, smokeless tobacco), marijuana and alcohol.
Information will also be collected on demographic variables including
sexual orientation, age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and primary
language.
    All information will be collected through in-person and Web-based
questionnaires. Young adult respondents will be recruited in 24 U.S.
cities (12 campaign and 12 comparison cities) from two sources: (1)
Intercept surveys in LGBT social venues (e.g., bars and nightclubs) and
(2) through social media advertisements (e.g. on Facebook and Twitter)
targeted at LGBT 18 to 24-year-olds, living in the same 24 U.S. cities.
Participation in the study is voluntary.

II. Media Tracking Survey

    The media tracking survey consists of assessments of LGBT young
adults aged 18 to 24 conducted in the periods in between the primary
outcome evaluation survey waves to monitor the target audience's
awareness of and receptivity to campaign activities. The media tracking
survey will assess awareness of the campaign and receptivity to
campaign messages. These data will provide critical evaluation feedback
to the campaigns and will be conducted with sufficient frequency to
match the cyclical patterns of events and media advertising and
variation in exposure to allow for mid-campaign refinements. For the
media tracking surveys, we will recruit LGBT young adults aged 18 to 24
from all campaign cities through social media.
    The information collected is necessary to inform FDA's efforts and
measure the effectiveness and public health impact of the campaigns.
Data from the media tracking surveys will be used to estimate awareness
of and exposure to the campaigns among young adults in target markets
where the campaigns are active. Data from the outcome evaluation study
will be used to examine statistical associations between awareness of
and exposure to the campaigns and subsequent changes in specific
outcomes of interest, which will include knowledge, attitudes, beliefs,
and intentions related to tobacco use.
    FDA's burden estimate is based on prior experience with in-person
studies similar to the Agency's plan presented in this document, as
well as previous research using social media advertising to recruit
young adult participants. Since the 60-day notice was published, FDA
has revised the estimated burden. The estimated burden has been revised
to account for both participant eligibility and response rates among
participants to be recruited via in-person intercept screening in LGBT
bars and night clubs as only response rates were estimated in the 60-
day notice. In addition, the burden table presented in this document
now reports the annual burden estimate, which has been corrected from
the 60-day notice, which reported total burden (rather than annual
burden).
    To reduce overall burden hours, participants who screen and
complete the baseline outcome evaluation questionnaire will be re-
contacted to complete the first followup campaign evaluation
questionnaire; those who complete the first followup campaign
evaluation questionnaire will be re-contacted to complete the second
followup campaign evaluation questionnaire; and so on. Re-contacted
individuals will not need to complete the screener again. We expect a
65 percent eligibility rate and 50 percent response rate for
individuals recruited in person and a combined eligibility and response
rate of 30 percent for individuals recruited via social media. In each
successive round of data collection, we expect 50 percent of re-
contacted individuals to complete the followup questionnaire;
therefore, additional screenings will be conducted for each followup in
order to maintain the target sample size for each followup
questionnaire.
    In-person recruitment will take place in a variety of LGBT venues
(e.g., bars, nightclubs). The owners or managers of potential
recruitment sites will be asked a series of questions to determine the
appropriateness of its clientele for participation in the study.
Approximately 1,920 venues (640 annualized) will be assessed at 5
minutes per assessment for a total of 159 hours (53 annualized).
    To obtain the target number of completed questionnaires
(``completes'') for the outcome evaluation study, 24,744 (8,248
annualized, or annually over the 3-year approval period) young adults
(18,177 (6,059 annualized) recruited in person and 6,567 (2,189
annualized) recruited via social media) will participate in a screening
process (``screener''). The estimated burden per screener is 5 minutes
(0.083 hour), for a total of 2,055 hours (685 annualized) (1,512 hours
(504 annualized) for participants recruited in person and 543 hours
(181 annualized) for persons recruited via social media). Before the
beginning of data collection, the 5-minute screener will be tested in a
small pilot study of 81 young adults (27 annualized) for a total of 6
hours (2 hours annualized).
    A total of 12,612 (4,204 annualized) LGBT young adults (9,456
(3,152 annualized) of those screened in person and 3,156 (1,052
annualized) of those screened through social media) will complete
questionnaires in four rounds of data collection (baseline and three
post-campaign rounds). The estimated burden per complete is 30 minutes
(0.5 hour) for the baseline questionnaire and 40 minutes (0.667 hour)
for each followup complete, for a total of 7,884 hours (2,628
annualized) (5,916 hours (1,972 annualized) for those recruited in
person and 1,968 hours (656 annualized) for those recruited via social
media).
    To obtain the target number of completes (1,503 completes (501
annualized)) for the media tracking survey, 5,004 (1,668 annualized)
young adults will be recruited via social media ads to complete a
screener for all three waves of the media tracking survey. The
estimated burden per screener response is 5 minutes (0.083 hour), for a
total of 415 (138 annualized) hours for all waves of media tracking
screener. An estimated 501 (167 annualized) LGBT young adults will
complete each of the three waves of the media tracking survey (assuming
a 30 percent combined eligibility and response rate to screeners via
social media). The estimated burden per completed media tracking
questionnaire is 40 minutes (0.667 hour), for a total of 999 (333
annualized) hours for the three waves. The total burden for the media
tracking survey (screeners and completes) is 1,413 hours (471
annualized).
    The target number of completed campaign questionnaires (i.e.,
screeners and questionnaires for both the outcome evaluation and media
tracking survey) for all respondents is 45,864 (15,288 annualized). The
total estimated burden is 11,517 (3,839 annualized).
    In the Federal Register of June 30, 2015 (80 FR 37270), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. FDA received two comments; however only one
was PRA related.
    (Comment) The commenter did not believe the amount of hours was
justified for learning about the LGBT population. Additionally, the
commenter did not see an explanation of the value of collecting this
information.
    (Response) FDA disagrees with this comment. The Tobacco Control Act

authorized FDA to develop and implement several public health education
campaigns about the dangers of using tobacco products. Through
literature reviews and analysis of national survey data, FDA identified
groups that are uniquely at-risk of tobacco initiation due to a variety
of factors, and who would benefit from an innovative education campaign
designed to prevent tobacco use. One such group is young adults who
identify as LGBT who, according to recent data, smoke at approximately
two times the rate of the general adult population.
    FDA is currently developing a national campaign targeting LGBT
young adults ages 18-24 years. The purpose of the proposed study is to
evaluate the campaign's reach and its effectiveness in changing their
knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes regarding tobacco. FDA's public
health education campaigns are a necessary and worthwhile investment to
reduce the significant burden of tobacco use and ultimately make
tobacco a part of America's past, not its future.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average
                                                                             Number of       Number of     Total annual     burden per     Total annual
            Type of respondent                        Activity              respondents    responses per     responses     response  (in       hours
                                                                                respondent                        hours)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venue owners and managers.................  Venue recruitment assessment             640               1             640           0.083              53
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Venue Recruitment...............  ............................             640               1             640  ..............              53
General Population: Pilot test of           Screener--Pilot study.......              27               1              27           0.083               2
 recruitment social media recruitment.
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Screener Pilot..................  ............................              27               1              27           0.083               2
Screener: General population--Recruited in  Screener--Baseline, outcome
 person (65% screen as eligible).            study.                                2,423               1           2,423           0.083             201
                                            Screener--First followup,     ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                             outcome study.                        1,212               1           1,212           0.083             101
                                            Screener--Second followup,    ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                             outcome study.                        1,212               1           1,212           0.083             101
                                            Screener--Third followup,     ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                             outcome study.                        1,212               1           1,212           0.083             101
Screeners: In person......................  ............................           6,059  ..............           6,059  ..............             504
Screener: General population--Recruited     Screener--Baseline, outcome
 via social media.                           study.                                  875               1             875           0.083              73
                                            Screener--First followup,     ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                             outcome study.                          438               1             438           0.083              36
                                            Screener--Second followup,    ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                             outcome study.                          438               1             438           0.083              36
                                            Screener--Third followup,     ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                             outcome study.                          438               1             438           0.083              36
Screeners: Social media...................  ............................           2,189  ..............           2,189  ..............             181
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total screeners.......................  ............................           8,248  ..............           8,248  ..............             685
Outcome Study LGBT young adults aged 18-24  Questionnaire--Baseline
 in select media markets--Recruited in       outcome study.                          788               1             788             0.5             394
 person (50% response rate).                Questionnaire--First          ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                             followup, outcome study.                788               1             788           0.667             526
                                            Questionnaire--Second         ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                             followup, outcome study.                788               1             788           0.667             526
                                            Questionnaire--Third          ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                             followup, outcome study.                788               1             788           0.667             526
Completes: Screened in person.............  ............................           3,152  ..............           3,152  ..............           1,972
Outcome Evaluation: LGBT young adults aged  Questionnaire--Baseline
 18-24 in select media markets--Recruited    outcome study.                          263               1             263             0.5             131
 via social media (30% combined             Questionnaire--First          ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
 eligibility and response rate).             followup, outcome study.                263               1             263           0.667             175
                                            Questionnaire--Second         ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                             followup, outcome study.                263               1             263           0.667             175
                                            Questionnaire--Third          ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                             followup, outcome study.                263               1             263           0.667             175
Completes: Recruited online...............  ............................           1,052  ..............           1,052  ..............             656
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total completes (recruited in person    ............................           4,204  ..............           4,204  ..............           2,628
     and recruited online).

LGBT young adults aged 18-24 in the select  Screener--First media
 media markets--Recruited via social media   tracking.                               556               1             556           0.083              46
 (30% combined eligibility and response     Screener--Second media        ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
 rate).                                      tracking.                               556               1             556           0.083              46
                                            Screener--Third media         ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                             tracking.                               556               1             556           0.083              46
Media tracking screeners..................  ............................           1,668  ..............           1,668  ..............             138
LGBT young adults aged 18-24 in the select  Questionnaire--First media
 media markets--Recruited via social media   tracking.                               167  ..............             167           0.667             111
 (30% combined eligibility and response     Questionnaire--Second media   ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
 rate).                                      tracking.                               167               1             167           0.667             111
                                            Questionnaire--Third media    ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                             tracking.                               167               1             167           0.667             111
Media tracking questionnaires.............  ............................             501  ..............             501  ..............             333
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total media tracking (screeners and     ............................           2,169  ..............           2,169  ..............             471
     questionnaires).
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals Across All Study Components  ............................          15,288  ..............          15,288  ..............           3,839
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: October 15, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-26671 Filed 10-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


February 12, 2009

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Economic Impact Analysis for National Emission Standards for
Paint and Allied Products Manufacturing Area Sources

FROM:	Tom Walton

ABCG (C439-02)

TO:		Melissa Payne

RDPAG (C404-05)

This document addresses   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  the economic impacts of
Paint and Allied Products Manufacturing Area Sources rule.  The economic
impact analysis focuses on changes in market prices and output levels.
If changes in market prices and output levels in the primary markets are
significant enough, impacts on other markets are also examined.

Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with the rule and the
distribution of these costs among affected facilities can have a role in
determining how the market will change in response to rule.  Total
annualized costs for the rule are estimated to be $3,100,000.  460
facilities are projected to incur costs because of the proposed rule
(almost eight tenths of the 2,190 facilities are projected to incur no
costs because they already meet the control requirements).

Particulate HAP

	Employment Size	Total Number of Facilities	Total Number of Facilities
with Additional Control Required	Gallons of Product Per Facility	Cost
per year	Cost/sales with $3.50 / Gallon price	Cost/sales with $12.18 /
Gallon price	Cost/sales with $19.91 / Gallon price

Small Model Plant (1 to 19 employees)	1,572	330	166,486	$6,362	1.09%
0.31%	0.19%

Large Model Plant (20 to 99 employees)	618	130	1,047,090	$7,463	0.20%
0.06%	0.04%

Cost to sales ratios are estimated to assess the impact on the affected
facilities.  Two sizes were used for the facilities and high, average,
and low prices were used for the product.  The tables below address the
requirements for particulate HAP and the requirements for

volatile HAP first individually and then together.  The particulate HAP
costs are by far the larger.

Volatile HAP

	Employment Size	Total Number of Facilities	Total Number of Facilities
with Additional Control Required	Gallons of Product Per Facility	Cost
per year	Cost/sales with $3.50 / Gallon price	Cost/sales with $12.18 /
Gallon price	Cost/sales with $19.91 / Gallon price

Small Model Plant (1 to 19 employees)	1,572	79	166,486	$17	0.00%	0.00%
0.0005%

Large Model Plant (20 to 99 employees)	618	31	1,047,090	$132	0.00%	0.00%
0.0006%

Both Particulate and Volatile HAP

	Employment Size	Total Number of Facilities	Total Number of Facilities
with Additional Control Required	Gallons of Product Per Facility	Cost
per year	Cost/sales with $3.50 / Gallon price	Cost/sales with $12.18 /
Gallon price	Cost/sales with $19.91 / Gallon price

Small Model Plant (1 to 19 employees)	1,572	79	166,486	$6,379	1.09%
0.31%	0.1925%

Large Model Plant (20 to 99 employees)	618	31	1,047,090	$7,595	0.21%
0.06%	0.0364%

Cost to sales ratios range from 0.19% for the small model plant with the
lowest ($3.50 per gallon price) and both types of control to 0.001 for
the large model plant with the highest price ($19.91 per gallon) for
volatile HAP control.  Thus all of the 2,190 facilities are projected to
have a cost to sales ratio below  1.0%.  The average cost to sales ratio
is expected to be around 0.13%.  Thus this regulation is not expected to
have significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. These
small costs are not expected to result in a significant market impact
whether they are passed on to the purchaser or absorbed.