[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46453-46454]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21391]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0485; FRL 9968-77-Region 7]

Approval of Nebraska's Air Quality Implementation Plan, Operating
Permits Program, and 112(l) Program; Revision to Nebraska
Administrative Code

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP), Operating
Permits Program, and 112(l) program submitted on July 14, 2014, by the
State of Nebraska. This action amends the SIP to revise two chapters,
``Definitions'' and ``Operating Permit Modifications; Reopening for
Cause''. Specifically, these revisions incorporate by reference the
list of organic compounds exempt from the definition of volatile
organic compound (VOC) found in the Code of Federal Regulations;
notification requirements for the operating permit program are being
amended to be consistent with the Federal operating permit program
requirements; the definition of ``solid waste'' is being revised by the
state, however, because the state's definition is inconsistent with the
Federal definition, EPA is not approving this definition into the SIP.
Finally, the state is extending the process of ``off-permit changes''
to Class I operating permits. Additional grammatical and editorial
changes are being made in this revision. Approval of these revisions
will not impact air quality, ensures consistency between the State and
Federally-approved rules, and ensures Federal enforceability of the
State's rules. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register, we are approving these two chapters as a direct final rule
without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse comment, we
will not take further action on this proposed rule.

DATES: Comments must be received by November 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2017-0485, to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Crable, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Nebraska's July 14, 2014, submittal included
revisions to Chapters 1, 4, 15, 18, 20, 28 and 34 of title 129. In
previous direct final actions, EPA approved revisions to chapter 4
``Ambient Air Quality Standards'' on October 11, 2016 (81 FR 70023),
and chapter 34 ``Emission Sources; Testing; Monitoring'' on October 7,
2016 (81 FR 69693).
    This document proposes to take action on chapter 1,
``Definitions'', and chapter 15, ``Operating Permit Modifications;
Reopening for Cause''. Revisions to chapter 1 ``Definitions'' involve
various grammatical and numerical edits. In addition, section 160 of
chapter 1 contains a definition of VOC that provides exceptions to the
definition based upon a list of organic compounds, which have been
determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity. The revision
removes the list of VOC exceptions at section 160, and instead
references the list in the Code of Federal Regulations. Revisions to
title 129, chapter 1, section 139 change the notification requirements
for ``Section 502(b)(10) changes'' making it consistent with the
Federal operating permit program. And finally, Nebraska's requested
revisions to the chapter 1 definition of ``solid waste'' are
inconsistent with the Federal definition. For that reason, EPA is not
approving the State's revised ``solid waste'' definition into the SIP.
    The proposed part 70 revision to chapter 15 extends ``off-permit
changes'', to Class I and II operating permits as allowed under the
Federal program. Additional changes ensure that chapter 15 conforms to
the applicable Federal regulations, including updating section 007,
which allows changes in a permitted facility without a permit revision
if certain criteria is met. Finally, revisions to chapter 15 shorten
notice periods under certain circumstances when changing Class I and II
operating permits, and are making various grammatical revisions for
clarity purposes.
    Chapter 18 is not a part of the State's approved SIP, and will be
addressed through a separate future rulemaking process under the CAA
section 111(d). EPA has elected to address changes to chapter 20 with a
future SIP revision. Chapter 28 is not a part of the State's approved
SIP and therefore, no action is required by the EPA.
    We have published a direct final rule approving the State's SIP
revision(s) in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal
Register, because we view this as a noncontroversial action and
anticipate no relevant adverse comment. We have explained our reasons
for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive
no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed
rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw the direct final
rule and it will not take effect. We would address all public comments
in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We do not
intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information, please see the information provided in the ADDRESSES
section of this document.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 25, 2017.
Cathy Stepp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2017-21391 Filed 10-4-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 27563-27565]
[DOCID:fr16my07-72]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0909; FRL-8128-9]

Diazinon; Notice of Receipt of Request to Voluntarily Cancel
Diazinon Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a
notice of receipt of a request by the registrant to voluntarily cancel
the registration of its sole product containing the pesticide diazinon.
The request would terminate granular diazinon use in or on lettuce. The
request would also terminate the last granular diazinon product
registered for use in the United States. EPA intends to grant this
request at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless
the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that
would merit its further review of the request, or unless the registrant
withdraws its request within this period. Upon acceptance of this
request, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this
notice will be permitted only if such sale, distribution, or use is
consistent with the terms as described in the final order.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 15, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0909, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number [EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0909]. EPA's policy is that all

comments received will be included in the docket without change and may
be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any

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

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web
site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either in the
electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available

in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jude Andreasen, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER> e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

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

II. Background on the Receipt of Requests to Cancel Registrations

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of a written request dated
April 13, 2007 from Wilbur-Ellis, a registrant of diazinon, to cancel
its sole remaining granular diazinon product registration. Diazinon is
an organophosphate insecticide. The affected product is provided in
Table 1. This request will result in the termination of the last
granular diazinon product registered in the United States. An amended
label for this product incorporating all risk mitigation measures
required by the Registration Eligibility Decision (RED) of 2002, except
for the closed system packaging requirement, was submitted with this
voluntary cancellation request. The Agency intends to approve this
label.
    Unless comments are received to the contrary, the Agency intends to
allow Wilbur-Ellis to continue to sell and distribute diazinon products
through December 2008. Existing stocks may be sold or used until
depleted.

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    This notice announces receipt by EPA of a request from a registrant
to cancel its remaining granular diazinon product registration. The
affected product and the registrant making the request are identified
in Table 1 and Table 2 of this unit.
    Under section 6(f)(1)(A) of FIFRA, registrants may request, at any
time, that their pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to
terminate one or more pesticide uses. Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA
requires that before acting on a request for voluntary cancellation,
EPA must provide a 30-day public comment period on the request for
voluntary cancellation or use termination. In addition, section
6(f)(1)(C) of FIFRA requires that EPA provide a 180-day comment period
on a request for voluntary cancellation or termination of any minor
agricultural use before granting the request, unless:

    1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
    2. The Administrator determines that continued use of the pesticide
would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
    Wilbur-Ellis, a diazinon registrant, has requested that EPA waive
the 180-day comment period. EPA will provide a 30-day comment period on
the proposed request.
    Unless the request is withdrawn by the registrant within 30 days of
publication of this notice, or if the Agency determines that there are
substantive comments that warrant further review of this request, an
order will be issued canceling the affected registrations.

   Table 1.--Diazinon; Product Registrations with Pending Requests for
                              Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Registration No.             Product name           Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2935-408                          Diazinon 14G        Wilbur-Ellis
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the name and address of record for
the registrant of the product listed in Table 1 of this unit.

          Table 2--Registrant Requesting Voluntary Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              EPA Company No.                 Company name and  address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2935                                        Wilbur-Ellis, P.O. Box 1286,
                                             Fresno, CA 93715
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further
provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice
of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter,
following the public comment period, the Administrator may approve such
a request.

V. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request and Considerations for
Reregistration of Diazinon

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must
submit such withdrawal in writing to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, postmarked before June 15, 2007. This
written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to
the applicable FIFRA section 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice. If
the products have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the
effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier
cancellation action are controlling.

VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action.
    In any order issued in response to this request for cancellation of
product registrations, EPA proposes to include the following provisions
for the treatment of any existing stocks of the products identified or
referenced in Table 1: The registrant will be allowed to sell and
distribute the subject products through December 2008. In addition,
existing stocks of diazinon products may be sold or used until they are
depleted.
    If the request for voluntary cancellation is granted as discussed
above, the Agency intends to issue a cancellation order that will allow
persons other than the registrant to continue to sell and/or use
existing stocks of cancelled products until such stocks are exhausted,
provided that such use is consistent with the terms of the previously
approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the cancelled product. The
order will specifically prohibit any use of existing stocks that is not
consistent with such previously approved labeling. If, as the Agency
currently intends, the final cancellation order contains the existing
stocks provision just described, the order will be sent only to the
affected registrants of the cancelled products. If the Agency
determines that the final cancellation order should contain existing
stocks provisions different than the ones just described, the Agency
will publish the cancellation order in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: May 3, 2007.
Peter Caulkins,
Acting Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-9205 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


Economic Classification Policy Committee Report No. 1 Economic Concepts Incorporated in the Standard Industrial Classification Industries of the United States August 1994 Copies of this and other Economic Classification Policy Committee reports can be obtained from the Economic Classification Policy Committee, Bureau of Economic Analysis ( BE 42), U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. 20230, or by telephone at ( 202) 606 9615, FAX ( 202) 606 5311. Economic Classification Policy Committee Report No. 1 Economic Concepts Incorporated in the Standard Industrial Classification Industries of the United States Introduction In 1992, the U. S. Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) established the Economic Classification Policy Committee ( ECPC), and charged it with conducting a " fresh slate" examination of economic classifications. The ECPC was explicitly instructed by OMB to design an improved conceptual framework for a new industrial classification system to be put into place by 1997.

In the initial part of its investigation, the ECPC published ECPC Issues Paper No. 1, " Conceptual Issues." 1 ECPC Issues Paper No. 1 develops the concept of the production oriented, or supply based, industry classification. It also links the production oriented economic concept to the preparation of data that would be appropriate for analyses of production, productivity, input intensities, and so forth. All of these uses share the requirement that the data be constructed according to the production oriented concept.

The second economic concept, the market oriented or demand based economic classification system, is also developed in ECPC Issues Paper No. 1. The paper shows that the market oriented concept results in data that are appropriate for marketing studies, demand studies, market share studies, and related analyses. 2 Emphasis on economic concepts is a relatively new approach to developing economic classifications. The ECPC's focus on economic concepts is responsive to views expressed by many of the participants at the 1991 International Conference on Classification on Economic Activities. 3 ____________________

1 Economic Classification Policy Committee, Issues Paper No. 1, " Conceptual Issues," Federal Register, March 31, 1993, pp. ________________ 16991 17000. 2 ECPC Issues Paper No. 1 asked for public comment on the appropriateness of these two alternative frameworks for a new classification system for the United States. A report, " Summary of Public Comments to ECPC Issues Papers Nos. 1 and 2," is available upon request from the ECPC.

3 Bureau of the Census, Proceedings, International ___________ Conference on Classification of Economic Activities, Williamsburg, Virginia: U. S. Department of Commerce, November More fundamentally, the ECPC's emphasis on economic concepts for economic classifications is, equivalently, an emphasis on the uses of industrial data, particularly the uses of such data in economic analysis. When data uses are emphasized to develop economic classifications, the first step is an explicit analysis of the major uses of data that are based on economic classifications; the second step is to derive, and from the economic framework and economic concepts that underlie the uses of data, implications for the design of economic classification systems. Tying the design of economic classifications explicitly to the economic uses of classified data is the major innovation introduced by the ECPC, compared with past work in classifications.

The ECPC determined early in its review process that it was essential to understand the underlying concepts embedded in the existing U. S. Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) system, before recommendations could be made on developing a new system. The present U. S. SIC system originated over 50 years ago and has been revised many times, most recently in 1987. Little documentation now exists on how the SIC system was developed and on its revisions since its inception. For example, no written documentation was produced on the 1987 SIC revision, though some internal files exist for earlier SIC revisions. The bases for decisions that led to the current U. S. system have been lost in time.

Many different views about the structure of the present U. S. SIC system have been expressed. Not surprisingly, many of the criticisms that have been made of the U. S. SIC system reflect these different views about the structure of the system, and of the purposes for which it was designed. Moreover, some critics have in mind uses for industrial data that differ from, and are not always fully consistent or compatible with, the uses desired by others who have criticized the system.

In one view, the U. S. SIC system embodies primarily production oriented concepts, and ( depending on their views about the ideal classification system) persons who hold this view contend that the production oriented decisions should either be changed, or that production oriented decisions should be implemented more consistently throughout the system. Others with a different view of the system feel that it is primarily a market oriented system, which is either favored or not, depending on the view of the speaker. ____________________

6 8, 1991, 587 pages. Available from Bureau of the Census, Room 2069 3, Washington, D. C. 20233.

Some have also said that the present SIC system reflects different decisions, depending on stage of process that is, primary goods industries, for example, have been treated differently in past SIC decisions from finished goods industries. Still others have said that differing concepts have been incorporated into different parts of the SIC system. Differing concepts may have been adopted because of inherent differences in the structure of production and of markets across different sectors of the U. S. economy, or because trade associations, and to an extent corporate structures, vary as to organizing principle, and these organizations have influenced past decisions about the SIC system.

Because so many differing views have been expressed about the present U. S. SIC system, the ECPC initiated a study to ascertain the conceptual basis of industries in the system. A similar study of the Canadian SIC system has been conducted by Statistics Canada. This paper explains how those reviews were conducted and presents the results for the United States. A companion paper4 presents results for Canada.

I. The Idea of a Concept based Industry As described in ECPC Issues Paper No. 1, a production oriented or supply based industry is one in which the production technology of the industry described by the production process itself, the materials sed, the type of labor employed, or some combination of these uniquely defines the industry. That is, when an industry is defined on a production oriented concept, the producing units that are grouped within the industry's boundaries share a basic production process, they use closely similar technology. Producing units in no other industry share the same technology and production process. In the language of economics, producing units within an industry share the same production functions; producing units in different industries have different production functions. The boundaries between industries thus demarcate, in principle, differences in production processes and production technologies.

In contrast, a market oriented or demand based classification is one in which either the products form a unique market, or the products are used and/ or distributed together. If the grouping is a " market" category, then the products included in it are closer substitutes among themselves than are any products outside the industry. If products are used together ____________________

4 Young, Kenneth, " The Conceptual Basis of the Standard Industrial Classification," Standards Division, Statistics Canada, February 1994.

( complements), or share distributive networks, this is another basis for a demand based classification. 5 Obviously, both conceptual definitions leave a great deal of room for interpretation. For example, a market oriented industry might be defined in terms of the cross price elasticities of demand between the products within the industry versus products outside the industry ( or alternatively, on what are known as " elasticities of substitution"). However, comprehensive empirical information on substitution among commodities from marketing studies or from demand studies, for example was not available for the ECPC study. In the absence of data on substitution, markets may be considered more broadly or more narrowly. Where, for example, does one draw the boundaries among markets for different kinds of beverages? If different kinds of soft drinks are close substitutes, are not soft drinks also substitutes for juices? for milk? for beer? The working group carrying out the ECPC study had to impose its judgment about what seemed reasonable market categories.

Similarly, production processes may be considered broadly or narrowly. For some purposes, welding and brazing are the same process; for others, they are not. Manufacture of parts may involve quite different technology from assembly of the parts into the ultimate product, and the two kinds of processes may or may not occur together in the same establishment. In many cases, the production process that leads to a particular product may in fact be a set of interrelated but distinct processes that are performed together in the same establishment. Moreover, vertical integration of these interrelated processes may be present in some establishments and not in others, which must also be considered in the judgments incorporated into the matrix. Again, provisional judgments on production processes had to be made in order to carry out the study.

The ECPC wishes to emphasize the role of judgment in the review that is contained in this report. The working group's results were inevitably constrained by the information available to it, so its findings should be viewed as preliminary, and as a basis for further discussion. Comment on the judgments in the matrix, from industry representatives or other knowledgeable persons, is solicited and welcomed.

ECPC Report No. 1 presents to the public more information about the production oriented and market oriented concepts ____________________

5 ECPC Issues Paper No. 1 also discusses Hicksian aggregation and functional aggregation as alternative bases for market oriented classifications. For lack of information, no attempt was made to judge whether industries corresponded these standards for forming demand based industries. described in ECPC Issues Paper No. 1, particularly on how these economic concepts can be used in pragmatic ways to guide the process of determining industry classifications. The ECPC has requested ( see Federal Register, July 26, 1994) that proposals for new or modified industries be based on implementing the production oriented economic concept. The information in the matrix, and the review process that is described in this ECPC report, can accordingly provide information and guidance to those individuals or organizations who are interested in proposing new 4 digit industries or modifying existing ones.

II. The Matrix A working group reviewed individual U. S. 4 digit industries to determine if a conceptual basis for each industry could be identified. A subset of the 1,004 U. S. 4 digit industries was chosen for study. The 4 digit industries examined included all those in the following SIC major groups.

Goods producing major groups (" 2 digit industries") were selected to include capital, consumer and intermediate goods, and both durables and nondurables:

Major Group 20 Food and Kindred Products Major Group 23 Apparel and Other Finished Products Made from Fabrics and Similar Materials Major Group 33 Primary Metal Industries Major Group 35 Industrial and Commercial Machinery and Computer Equipment Major Group 37 Transportation Equipment The 175 4 digit industries in the above 2 digit major groups accounted for 37 percent of the 459 industries in manufacturing, and 43 percent of U. S. manufacturing value of shipments in the 1987 Economic Censuses ( table 1).

The working group also studied the 60 4 digit industries in the following Major Groups in the services sectors:

Major Group 72 Personal Services Major Group 73 Business Services Major Group 87 Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management, and Related Services The services industries selected for review accounted for 43 percent of services industry receipts, the same proportion as the manufacturing industries included the study. The services industries also included many that provided rigorous " test cases" for application of the economic concepts. In total, the working group reviewed 235 industries, 23 percent of the 1,004 U. S. SIC 4 digit industries. These industries accounted for 19 percent of U. S. total value of shipments or receipts in 1987.

At the beginning of its work, the matrix working group designed a questionnaire that helped focus the discussion for each industry. A copy of that questionnaire is reproduced as Appendix A.

Each 4 digit industry was discussed at length among the members of the working group until a consensus was reached on the presence or absence of an economic concept that described the industry. The discussion was directed, either explicitly or implicitly, by the questionnaire, Appendix A. Answers to the questions on the questionnaire dictate the corresponding entries in Appendix B, according to the rules set forth in the instructions on the questionnaire.

The results of the review are documented in the " Matrix of Economic Concepts in Selected U. S. SIC Industries" ( Appendix B). The matrix shows the extent that each U. S. 4 digit SIC industry corresponds to production oriented or market oriented classification concepts, as those concepts are explained in ECPC Issues Paper No. 1.

It is important to emphasize again the judgment involved in this process. Judgments are incorporated into the matrix, and those judgments are inherently subjective. None of the working group members qualified as an authority on the technology and production processes used in the 4 digit industries that were studied, nor were they necessarily marketing experts. Other analysts may disagree with the judgments the working group made, or have access to better information than was available to them.

Individuals from within the industries themselves, individuals who have carried out marketing studies on products produced within these industries, and other private sector and government industry authorities would no doubt be able to add valuable information on production technologies and on markets for all of the industries that were studied by the working group.

The ECPC welcomes comments from informed persons on thejudgments incorporated into the matrix. Those judgments should be considered as the basis for further discussion, for refinement, and for revision when more expertise on particular markets and production processes becomes available, either from industry comments or from elsewhere. The matrix in its present stage can thus be thought of as a preliminary review of the U. S. classification system, and it is subject to revision as additional information is received from industry and other sources. Forming the Matrix from the Questionnaire Reviewing the questionnaire ( Appendix A) is useful, not only for understanding how the matrix ( Appendix B) was constructed, but also to explain the symbols that are used in the body of the matrix. Each question in the questionnaire has a counterpart column in the matrix; both the questions in the questionnaire, and columns in the matrix, are organized into production oriented ( supply based) and market oriented ( demand based) blocks.

Consider first the production oriented questions ( part A of the questionnaire). The first question under part A asks whether there is a common production process that is shared by the establishments in this industry, and if it is a production process that distinguishes those establishments from producers in other industries. An affirmative answer means that the production process defines the industry, and the letter " D" ( defines a conceptually based industry) was entered in the matrix under the column labeled " process." Thus, taking as an example SIC 2021, Creamery Butter, the process of churning to make butter appears unique to this industry, the more so if one considers the fundamental input ( cream) that also characterizes this industry.

As implied by the butter example, question A. 2 asks a similar question about the material or materials used in the industry. A material was considered to define an industry only if the characteristics of the material imply a fundamental partof the technology. For example, the physical properties of cream dictate the technology used to separate butter. As another example, the physical properties of fluid milk dictate many of the processing methods and the types of machinery and equipment that must be used to handle it.

The working group considered material as a way of isolating aspects of the technology and the production process that were associated with a particular material, aspects that might not otherwise have been considered fully or might not otherwise have been understood adequately by the working group members. An industry's mere use of a characteristic, unique or major material is not sufficient to define a production oriented industry. For example, baking chocolate cakes implies the use of chocolate, which is not an ingredient in baking white cakes; but nothing in the technology of cake baking differs fundamentally with the presence or absence of chocolate, so the use of this material does not define the technology of an industry. As another example, open pit mining of different ores using the same mining technology would not necessarily be placed in different production oriented industries; one would have to consider the entirely of the mining process, not just the ore.

Though it was central in many services industries, the labor question, A( 3), did not define the technology of manufacturing industries. An exception is SIC 3544, Special Dies and Tools, Die Sets, Jigs and Fixtures, and Industrial Molds, where highly skilled tool and die makers were considered an important element in defining the industry. A positive answer to questions A. 1 or A. 2 led to the judgment that the industry is defined on a production oriented concept. In such cases, the associated symbol " D" was entered in the appropriate column of the production oriented side of the matrix.

A similar process was used for the market oriented portion of the questionnaire. Using once again the example of SIC 2021, Creamery Butter, the working group determined that the primary products produced in this industry ( butter, of different types and in different packages) are better substitutes for each other than is any product of any other industry. Thus, butter itself is a reasonable market category ( Appendix A, question B( 1)). This answer leads to the symbol " D" ( again meaning that it defines a conceptually based classification, this time on the market oriented side) under the column " market" in the matrix ( Appendix B, fourth column). The working group also noted that a broader market category might include margarine and other fats and oils, which underscores the judgment that must be made in constructing the matrix.

In the case of SIC 2021, Creamery Butter, the symbol " D" appears on both the production oriented, supply based side of the matrix and the market oriented, demand based side of the matrix. This means that data for the butter industry are appropriate for use in production related analyses and also in demand and marketing analyses. Accordingly, creamery butter is designated an " ideal" industry, and is so coded under the " ideal industry" column of the matrix.

The working group considered the possibility that the establishments in an industry might share a common production process among them, yet the same or a closely similar production process might be used in other industries as well ( Appendix A, question A( 1)( a)). In such cases, the industry would include only part of a production process, and the symbol " P" ( for partial process) was entered in the appropriate column in the production oriented side of the matrix. For example, a similar processing and freezing technology is used by the establishments in SIC 2037, Frozen Fruits, Fruit Juices, and Vegetables, but it is by no means a unique process for this industry; in Canada, frozen fish are produced in the frozen fruit and vegetable freezing establishments using the same process. In the matrix, the symbol " P" ( for " part") appears under process for industry 2037, because the industry as now defined appears to include only part of an industry defined on a production oriented concept.

Where the symbol " P" appears on the production oriented side of the matrix, this implies that a better production oriented industry could be constructed by combining this industry with some other industry or industries, or parts of them. The candidate industries for combination are listed in the " Comments."

The opposite case is where one present SIC 4 digit industry encompasses more than one production process ( Appendix A, question A( 1)( b)). For these cases, the matrix symbol " M" ( for multiple process) is used. For example, SIC 2034, Dried and Dehydrated Fruits, Vegetables, and Soup Mixes, consists of two production processes: One set of establishments uses dehydration technology; another set of establishments mixes dehydrated ingredients into soup mixes. The working group commented that separating soup mixes from the dehydrated fruit and vegetables portion of the industry would create a better production oriented industry ( in this case, they also judged that it would improve the grouping as a marketing category).

On the market oriented side, similar definitions of " P" and " M" symbols were used. For example, all of the products produced in an industry might belong to the same market, but products from some other industry might also belong in this market ( Appendix A, question B( 1)( a)). These cases are treated in parallel with the partial process industries: The symbol " P" ( for part market) is entered in the appropriate column or columns of the market oriented side of the matrix. If multiple markets exist within an industry ( Appendix A, question B( 1)( b)), an " M" is entered in the appropriate column of the matrix, Appendix B.

The final column in the matrix records cases where the working group gave a negative answer to every question on the questionnaire. For example, SIC 2023, Dry, Condensed, and Evaporated Dairy Products, combines neither common production processes nor does it correspond to a marketing category, so far as the working group's judgment could discern. For this reason, the symbol " N," for " No conceptual basis," was entered in the far right hand column of the matrix. Most of the SIC system's " 99" or " not elsewhere classified" ( nec) industries lack any economic concept by definition, and were recorded " N" in the matrix. All these industries are candidates for restructuring.

Industry Examples from the Matrix It is instructive to go through a few additional examples to understand the reasoning that went into the matrix.

Consider first industry 2096, Potato Chips, Corn Chips, and Similar Snacks. Following the questionnaire, there does seem to be a common process in the industry frying, or oil cooking. Frying would define the technology used in this industry, except that it occurs in other food industries also. Thus, the working group entered " P" in the process column.

On the demand side, using judgment the working group decided that SIC 2096 is a reasonable market category. If it were building a market oriented system from scratch, the group might also include pretzels and nuts in the snack foods market category.

Another market based food industry is Natural, Processed, and Imitation Cheese ( SIC 2022). One might think that cheese making would be a process based industry, and so it would. However, SIC 2022 contains imitation cheese, cheese " analogs," cheese dips, and so forth, which do not share similar production processes, or even similar materials. SIC 2022 is thus classified only as a market category. An interesting interaction between production oriented and market oriented categories arises in the two candy industries ( 2064 and 2066). Establishments in the candy industry itself ( SIC 2064, Candy and Other Confectionery Products) do not appear to share any common production process. Instead, candy seems to be a market grouping. It is, however, not a complete market. Although chocolate bars made by producers that do not grind and process the cocoa beans are in the candy industry ( SIC 2064), chocolate bars made by fully integrated chocolate makers are in another industry, SIC 2066, Chocolate and Cocoa Products. The chocolate industry, SIC 2066, seems to be defined primarily on the production process of grinding and processing cocoa beans: That is, SIC 2066 is primarily a production oriented industry. Many of the resulting products are not close substitutes ( baking chocolate for example), and therefore do not make up a single market category. Because the candy industry, SIC 2064, includes some chocolate bars, but not others, it is only a partial market category; its related industry, the chocolate industry, SIC 2066, has some attributes of a production oriented industry.

Another example is SIC 3562, Ball and Roller Bearings. The bearing making process was judged unique, so " D" was entered under process. On the market side, the products also form a unique market, although a more complete market also would include plain bearings, which are close substitutes in some applications. Since the industry is uniquely defined on both the supply and demand sides, it meets the criteria for an " ideal" industry, and has been denoted as such.

Note, as the bearing industry example shows, that the designation " ideal" indicates only that data for the industry as presently defined can be used both for production analyses and for market analyses. It does not indicate that some refinement or revision of the present industry definition would or would not make the industry even better for one or more of the intended data uses.

Another manufacturing example is SIC 3563, Air and Gas Compressors. This industry is titled incorrectly: It actually consists of " air and gas compressors, and spraying, dusting, and painting equipment." Correctly titled, it neither combines establishments employing a unique process ( or labor type, or material) nor does it comprise a unique market. Compressors are often used with spraying and painting equipment, but the products that are included in this industry cannot be viewed as complements either. The industry thus appears to have neither a production nor a market basis, and was coded " N," which signifies the belief of the working group that the industry as now defined corresponds to no conceptual basis.

Clothing industries were, in general, problems. It is difficult to see that the production process for Men's and Boys' Suits, Coats, and Overcoats ( SIC 2311) is significantly different from the production process for Women's, Misses,' and Juniors' Suits, Skirts, and Coats ( SIC 2337), or from that for Men's and Boys' Separate Trousers and Slacks ( SIC 2325). Moreover, these industries all include several levels of integration: Integrated manufacturers that purchase materials and " cut and sew" the garment; contractors that do not own the material, but only manufacture the garment for another entity; and jobbers that own the material and perhaps style the garment, but contract out for the garment's manufacture. The actual processes involved in nearly all the 4 digit industries in Major Group 23 are the same in each industry, namely: design the garment, purchase the material, cut the material, and sew the garment. It also is difficult to see why a clothing establishment that makes men's coats ( or a cut and sew shop that cuts and sews men's coats) could not, in principle, do the same operation on women's coats.

For this reason, the working group entered " P" under process for all the 4 digit clothing industries, indicating that there seems little basis from the production oriented concept for the dividing lines that are drawn in the present SIC 4 digit clothing industries.

Clothing industry establishments do, however, seem to specialize in either men's, women's or children's clothing, or at least that was true in the past. The clothing industries appear to represent marketing categories, or categories that are defined by the distribution practices in the industry. Establishments apparently specialize to produce apparel products according to marketing conventions. The working group coded almost all of the clothing industries as partial market categories.

The working group did not feel very confident in any of its judgments with respect to apparel industries. Notice that there are a fair number of N industries in the clothing and textiles section, industries that seem to lack a conceptual foundation, at least to the extent of the working group's knowledge of them. Particular examples are the " Schiffli Machine Embroideries" industry, SIC 2397, and the " Pleating, Decorative and Novelty Stitching, and Tucking for the Trade" industry, SIC 2395. The ECPC will obtain additional information from industry and trade groups regarding the economic concepts for apparel industries, and will as well consider information on the classification of apparel from Canada and Mexico.

Primary metals provide many examples of production oriented industries. However, a large number of the primary metals industries either incorporate multiple processes within them coded " M" under process) or share processes across several current SIC industries ( coded " P"). For example, aluminum, copper, and other nonferrous foundries, SIC 3365, 3366, and 3369, respectively, do not seem to be separated by production process, but by input material only. Unless the input metals have implications for the foundry processes that must be employed on them, these three seem partial process industries, and might be combined into a wider production oriented industry.

Services Industry Examples Information on services industries is less abundant, and the services classifications themselves are less well developed than is true in manufacturing. For this reason, even more judgment was required to determine the conceptual basis for services industries.

In services, it was anticipated ( see ECPC Issues Paper No. 6, " Services Classifications") that specialized labor inputs would be a major factor in assessing industries on the production side. Many services industries sell the capabilities of their employees, and though employee contributions to the quality of the product are also vital to goods production, employee skills are essential aspects of what services producers do. Thus, in services industries, the questionnaire's labor question ( Appendix A, question A( 3)) was particularly important.

One example is SIC 7323, Credit Reporting Services. The production process in this industry involves information collection and processing; one could argue that many other services industries also conduct information processing activities. The working group decided that the personnel performing similar tasks at banks and financial institutions and at mortgage firms likely use similar skills, and that the on line information retrieval process in SIC 7323 was shared with SIC 7375, Information Retrieval Services. This, the working group decided, warranted a " P" under process. On the demand side, the working group decided that the credit reporting service industry is a unique market, and a " D" was entered in the market column for SIC 7323. It is probably true that financial institutions provide similar services, but they do so mainly for themselves.

A number of " ideal" industries were identified among the services industries examined. For example, SIC 8712, Architectural Services, requires unique skills. Many years of schooling and training are required before one is licensed as an architect, and these skills define what an architectural firm sells. This influenced the group to code this industry " D" under the labor column on the production oriented side. On the demand side, the whole range of services offered by an architectural firm is unique and not readily substitutable from other industries ( though substitution may occur for some of the individual services). Thus, a " D" was placed in the market column of the matrix. With D's on both sides of the matrix, SIC 8712 qualifies as an ideal industry. Note that coding SIC 8712 as ideal does not preclude subdividing this industry, on the basis of additional information on architectural services and their markets, into components that might also be ideal.

III. Results of the Review Information from the 1987 Census of Manufactures permits tabulating the relative importance of industries that have been placed in the different categories of the matrix.

Table 1 presents the proportion of U. S. industries that were selected for analysis in the matrix, and the proportion of total U. S. value of shipments accounted for by these industries. Considering just the manufacturing and services industries divisions from which matrix industries were drawn, matrix manufacturing industries accounted for $ 1.06 trillion of shipments, 43 percent of manufacturing shipments of $ 2.48 trillion. Matrix services industries had 1987 receipts of $ 329 billion, 43 percent of the $ 772 billion of receipts for the service industries. Overall, the 235 industries reviewed in the matrix accounted for 19.3 percent of total 1987 industry value of shipments or receipts.

Manufacturing Industries Table 2 presents the results for manufacturing industries. It suggests hat the current U. S. SIC has no single dominating economic concept. In the following, all percentages relate to the totals for the manufacturing major groups included in the study. They might change somewhat if all the 459 manufacturing industries were included.

Only 16.6 percent of the industries ( accounting for 18.8 percent of value of shipments for the manufacturing industries included in the study) are fully defined on a production oriented concept. Roughly half of these are ideal industries, that is, cases where the same industry definition would emerge from application of either the production oriented or the market oriented economic concept.

A fifth ( 20 percent) of manufacturing industries are partial production oriented industries ( P). As noted, these are cases where combination with some other industry, or parts of another industry, might create a better production oriented industry.

Another fifth ( 21.1 percent) of manufacturing industries encompass multiple production processes ( M) within the same SIC industry definition. Multiple process industries, however, account for a third of manufacturing shipments, so they are among the relatively larger industries in economic importance. Multiple process industries could be made into fully defined production oriented industries with relatively simple divisions of the presently defined industries.

Over all, roughly three fifths ( 58.3 percent) of manufacturing industries incorporate the production oriented concept in some way ( whether " D," " M," or " P"). Two fifths ( 41.7 percent) of manufacturing 4 digit industries, accounting for more than a third of manufacturing shipments, have no production oriented basis in the current SIC classification system. A number of these are " nec" industries, which are appropriate subjects for review and redefinition.

The situation is not much different with respect to the market oriented concept. A somewhat larger number of present 4 digit manufacturing SIC's are fully defined according to the market oriented concept ( 27.4 percent). Another quarter of manufacturing industries ( 26.9 percent) are partial markets, accounting for about the same share of manufacturing shipments as the fully defined market industries ( 20.2 and 23.2 percent of shipments, respectively). A bit more than two thirds of manufacturing industries ( 69.1 percent) incorporate the market oriented concept in their definitions in some way (" D," " M," or " P").

By shipments shares, 10 percent of manufacturing shipments arise from ideal industries in the groups of the present SIC system that were examined for the study. This is more than equalled by the 17.1 percent of shipments that come from industries with no conceptual basis.

The percentages discussed in this section and displayed in Table 2 pertain only to the manufacturing major groups chosen for the review. Manufacturing groups that have not yet been reviewed account for more than half of manufacturing, so the picture might change when a full review of all 459 manufacturing industries is carried out.

Manufacturing 2 digit Major Groups Tables 3 and 4 expand on the information in Table 2 by presenting similar tabulations for those 2 digit major groups in manufacturing that were selected for review. Table 3 tabulates the percentages of 4 digit industries within each 2 digit major group, and corresponds to the percentages presented for manufacturing as a whole in the left hand portion of Table 2; Table 4 tabulates the same information, weighted by value of shipments, and so corresponds to the percentages tabulated for manufacturing as a whole in the right hand portion of Table 2.

In these tables, the food industries ( SIC 20) and the primary metal industries ( SIC 33) have the largest percentages of fully defined production oriented 4 digit industries. If one adds in the large proportion ( 76 percent, by value of shipments) of multiple process primary metal industries in SIC 33, this SIC major group appears already largely to conform to the production oriented classification concept.

A large proportion of apparel industries ( SIC 23) were coded partial process, for reasons noted in section II, above. Machinery industries ( SIC 35) seem to have been defined most often by market oriented concepts, where they fit an economic concept at all. Few machinery industries have been defined to be consistent with the production oriented economic concept ( over 70 percent of these industries were judged to have no production oriented basis).

Transportation equipment ( SIC 37) 4 digit industries include a large proportion that have multiple processes ( 56 percent by value of shipments) and multiple markets ( 68 percent, by value of shipments, counting those cases where an industry has simultaneously partial market and multiple markets in the same SIC). Multiple process industries are possible candidates for division to make smaller industries that more closely conform to the production oriented concept.

Stage of Process Some have expressed the view that the concepts implemented in the U. S. SIC differ by Stage of Process ( SOP). On this view, industries that are in lower SOP's ( crude and primary materials producing) are more likely to be production oriented. Final products industries may be market oriented.

Tables 5 and 6 contain computations that are similar to those presented in earlier tables, but they are arranged according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics SOP for each 4 digit industry ( where available). The SOP classification groups industries into Crude, Primary, Semifinished, and Finished categories, based on the input output tables published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Producers that ship 75 percent or more of their output to final demand are designated as Finished processors. Producers that ship 60 percent or more of their output to finished producers and final demand, but less than 75 percent to final demand, make up the Semifinished processors category. Producers shipping 60 percent or more of their output to semifinished or finished producers, but less than 75 percent to final demand are Primary processors. Crude producers are the industries left over after the other stages were defined. 6 As the tables show, the evidence suggests a weak relation. The proportion of fully defined production oriented industries is indeed highest at the crude stage ( 30 percent) and lowest at the final goods stage ( 12 percent), and multiple process industries show a similar pattern. But the differences in percentages among the various stages of process are not large, and nearly as many crude processing industries as final demand industries have no production oriented basis.

Similar statements can be made on the market oriented side. Somewhat more final goods industries ( 36 percent) than crude processing industries ( 20 percent) are fully defined by the market oriented concept. The differences in percentages, however, are not large, and they do not increase progressively from lower to higher SOP.

Tables 5 and 6 show that the expected SOP patterns do not hold, even if the definition of production or market orientation is extended to include partial industries or partial markets. Of course, the sample of industries included in the matrix is incomplete. Further review of other SIC major groups will provide additional evidence on the relation, if any, between SOP and the economic concepts of SIC 4 digit industries.

Services Industries Table 7 presents results for the services industries. As with manufacturing, the analysis of services industries suggests that the current U. S. SIC has no single dominating economic concept.

____________________

6 Gaddie, R., Zoller, M., " New Stage of Process Price System Developed for the Producer Price Index," Monthly Labor Review, April 1988, pp. 3 16. Services have a higher percentage of fully defined industries, 21.7 percent for production oriented and 30.0 percent for market oriented industries, than manufacturing has. For services industries, 26.7 percent were categorized as containing multiple production processes, which may indicate that these processes could be the basis for artitioning services activities into a larger number of fully defined production oriented industries. Only 13.3 percent ( 9.0 percent by value of receipts) were partial process. On balance, therefore, the groups' judgment suggests a greater need for splitting existing services industries than for combining them.

Roughly the same proportion of services industries show some market oriented basis ( 75.0 percent) as show some production oriented basis ( 73.3 percent). However, the high percentage of services industries categorized as having partial markets ( 31.7 percent) or no market oriented basis ( 25.0 percent), implies that many services industries in the present SIC do not correspond to well defined market groupings.

Turning to the results by 2 digit services major groups tables 8 and 9), we find that the largest percentage 62 percent of poorly defined groupings occur in Major Group 87, Engineering, Accounting, Research, Management, and Related Services, representing about 39 percent of the total value of receipts for Major Group 87. Major Group 87 is equally poorly defined with respect to the market concept; perhaps its very title, which suggests an amalgam of professional services, provides a clue to the source of the problem.

The largest percentage of fully defined industries, for both concepts, is found in Major Group 73, Business Services. Here 31 percent of industries representing 20 percent of value of receipts were judged fully defined on a production basis, and 38 percent of industries representing 18 percent of value of receipts were judged fully defined on a market basis. Including those industries that are partially defined on the production concept raises the percentage of production defined industries to 50 percent, representing 36 percent of the value of receipts for the major group. Fully defined and partial market industries sum to 79 percent of the industries in the major group, representing 59 percent of the value of receipts.

Major Group 72, Personal Services, is the only services major group containing no ideal industries. The reason seems to lie in the collection of establishments contained therein: These are laundries, photographic studios, barber shops, shoe repair shops, funeral services, tax preparation, and other miscellaneous services.

( TABLES 1 9 can be viewed at http:// www. census. gov/ epcd/ naics/ ecpcrpt1) APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE A. Production oriented or Supply based questions 1) Does the production process uniquely define this industry?

IF YES, ENTER D IN COLUMN 2.

IF NO: a) Is the process used in other industries? IF THE INCLUSION OF THESE OTHER INDUSTRIES, OR PARTS OF THEM, WOULD CHANGE YOUR ANSWER TO ( 1), ENTER P IN COLUMN 2 AND ENTER THE OTHER INDUSTRIES IN THE NOTES.

( b) Are there two distinct processes in this industry?

IF SPLITTING THIS INDUSTRY INTO 2 OR MORE PARTS WOULD CHANGE YOUR ANSWER TO QUESTION ( 1), ENTER M IN COLUMN 2, AND INDICATE IN THE NOTES WHAT THE DIVIDED INDUSTRIES MIGHT BE CALLED.

( 2) Do the materials used in this industry uniquely define the industry?

IF YES, ENTER D IN COLUMN 3.

IF NO:

( a) Are these materials used in other industries? IF THE INCLUSION OF THESE OTHER INDUSTRIES, OR PARTS OF THEM, WOULD CHANGE YOUR ANSWER TO ( 2), ENTER P IN COLUMN 3 AND ENTER THE OTHER INDUSTRIES IN THE NOTES.

( b) Are there two distinct materials in this industry? IF SPLITTING THIS INDUSTRY INTO 2 OR MORE PARTS WOULD CHANGE YOUR ANSWER TO QUESTION ( 2), ENTER M IN COLUMN 3, AND INDICATE IN THE NOTES WHAT THE DIVIDED INDUSTRIES MIGHT BE CALLED.

( 3) Do the human capital components of the labor force uniquely define this industry?

IF YES, ENTER D IN COLUMN 4.

IF NO:

( a) Are these skills used in other industries? IF THE INCLUSION OF THESE OTHER INDUSTRIES, OR PARTS OF THEM, WOULD CHANGE YOUR ANSWER TO ( 3), ENTER P IN COLUMN 4 AND ENTER THE OTHER INDUSTRIES IN THE NOTES.

b) Are there two distinct labor types in this industry?

IF SPLITTING THIS INDUSTRY INTO 2 OR MORE PARTS WOULD CHANGE YOUR NSWER TO QUESTION( 3), ENTER M IN COLUMN 4, AND INDICATE IN THE NOTES WHAT THE DIVIDED INDUSTRIES MIGHT BE CALLED.

4) Does a COMBINATION of material, labor, and/ or process uniquely define this industry?

IF YES, THIS IS A SUPPLY BASED INDUSTRY. ENTER D IN APPROPRIATE COLUMNS ( COULD BE ANY COMBINATION OF 2, 3, AND 4).

B. Market oriented or Demand based questions ( 1) Are the products of this industry closer substitutes among themselves than anything produced outside the industry?

IF YES, ENTER D IN COLUMN 5.

IF NO:

( a) Would the inclusion of another industry ( or several, or part of another) change your answer?

IF YES, ENTER P IN COLUMN 5 AND ENTER THE OTHER INDUSTRIES IN THE NOTES.

( b) Would splitting this industry into two change your answer?

IF YES, ENTER M IN COLUMN 5 AND INDICATE IN THE NOTES WHAT THE DIVIDED INDUSTRIES MIGHT BE CALLED.

( 2) Are the products of this industry typically distributed or used together?

IF YES, ENTER D IN COLUMN 6. IF NO: ( a) Would the inclusion of another industry, or part of an industry, or of several industries or parts of several industries, change your answer?

IF YES, ENTER P IN COLUMN 6 AND ENTER THE OTHER INDUSTRIES IN THE NOTES.

( b) Would splitting this industry into two or more industries change your answer?

IF YES, ENTER M IN COLUMN 6 AND INDICATE IN THE NOTES WHAT THE DIVIDED INDUSTRIES MIGHT BE CALLED.


[Federal Register: November 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 62460-62461]
[DOCID:fr05no07-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 26, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP88-67-083.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits Twenty-Fourth
Revised Sheet 25 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1 et
al., to be effective 12/1/07.
    Filed Date: 10/23/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071024-0131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, November 5, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP97-81-043.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Trans., LLC.
    Description: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC submits
its Third Revised Sheet 4G.02 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth
Revised Volume 1-A.
    Filed Date: 10/25/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071026-0056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 6, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-176-139.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America submits the
Transportation Rate Schedule FTS Agreement with a negotiated rate
exhibit, Third Revised Sheet 414.02 with Chesapeake Energy Marketing,
Inc.
    Filed Date: 10/25/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071026-0027.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 6, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-31-000.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company.
    Description: Crossroads Pipeline Co. submits its Second Revised
Sheet 78 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 10/25/2007.
    Accession Number: 20071026-0055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 6, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings

must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or
before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not
necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a
compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket.
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or
protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In
reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or
protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served
on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-21647 Filed 11-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28771]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11808]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG 2012-0106]

Safety Zone; San Francisco Giants Fireworks Display, San
Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the San
Francisco Giants Fireworks Display in the Captain of the Port, San
Francisco area of responsibility during the dates and times noted
below. This action is necessary to protect life and property of the
maritime public from the hazards associated with the fireworks display.
During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the
safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191 will be enforced from 11 a.m.
to 10:40 p.m. on July 13, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email Ensign William Hawn, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce a 100 foot
safety zone around the fireworks barge off of Pier 50 in position
37[deg]46'28'' N, 122[deg]23'06'' W (NAD 83) from 11 a.m. until 9 p.m.
on July 13, 2012. From 9 p.m. to 9:10 p.m. on July 13, 2012 the loaded
barge will transit from Pier 50 to the launch site near Pier 48 in
position 37[deg]46'39.9'' N, 122[deg]23'06.78'' W (NAD83). The 100 foot
safety zone applies to the navigable waters around and under the
fireworks barge within a radius of 100 feet during the loading,
transit, and arrival of the fireworks barge to the display location and
until the start of the fireworks display. Upon the commencement of the
fireworks display, scheduled to take place from 10 p.m. to 10:15 p.m.
on July 13, 2012, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass
the navigable waters around and under the fireworks barge within a
radius 1,000 feet around the launch site near Pier 48 in position
37[deg]46'39.9'' N, 122[deg]23'06.78'' W (NAD83) for the San Francisco
Giants Fireworks Display in 33 CFR 165.1191. This safety zone will be
in effect from 11 a.m. to 10:40 p.m. on July 13, 2012. Under the
provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the
safety zone during all applicable effective dates and times, unless
authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each person who
receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an official
patrol vessel shall obey the order or direction. The PATCOM is
empowered to forbid entry into and control the regulated area. The
PATCOM shall be designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San
Francisco. The PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of
commercial vessels through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5 U.S.C.
552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the Coast
Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of the safety zone and its enforcement period via the
Local Notice to Mariners.
    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to
enter the regulated area.

    Dated: February 21, 2012.
Cynthia L. Stowe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2012-11808 Filed 5-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 41062]
[DOCID:fr19jy06-144]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Aurora Medical Technology, Inc.; Order of
Suspension of Trading

July 14, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Aurora Medical Technology, Inc. (``AROR'') because of possible
manipulative conduct occurring in the market for the company's stock.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed
company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, on July 14,
2006 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on July 27, 2006.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-6304 Filed 7-14-06; 11:02 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53162-53163]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21639]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]

Food and Drug Administration/Drug Information Association
Oligonucleotide-Based Therapeutics Conference 2015

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, in cosponsorship with the Drug Information
Association (DIA), is announcing a meeting entitled ``FDA/DIA
Oligonucleotide-Based Therapeutics Conference 2015'' (FDA/DIA 2015
conference). The purpose of the meeting is to discuss advances, safety,
and challenges in the field of oligonucleotide-based therapeutics.

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 9 to September 10, 2015,
from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. and September 11, 2015, from 7 a.m. to 12 noon.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Grand Hyatt Washington, 1000
H St. NW., Washington, DC 20001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Kaganovskiy, Drug Information
Association (DIA), 800 Enterprise Rd., Horsham, PA 19044,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Robert
T. Dorsam, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER), 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002;<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Oligonucleotide therapeutics constitute a diverse and evolving
class of drug products that are being developed for a wide variety of
indications. The FDA/DIA 2015 conference is a forum where regulators,
academics, and members of industry will discuss the advances,
challenges, and opportunities in the field of oligonucleotide
therapeutics. This is the sixth meeting in approximately eight years
where attendees will discuss oligonucleotide therapeutics in clinical,
nonclinical, and chemistry tracks. The meeting will provide updates on
advancements in this field, and will also present time for stakeholders
to discuss challenges in the development and regulation of
oligonucleotide therapeutics. Topics will be addressed using
presentations, panel discussions, case studies, and a poster session to
facilitate discipline-specific and multidisciplinary discussions. The
goal of the meeting is to provide a current view of oligonucleotide
therapeutics and foster advancement in the field through discussions
among regulators, academics, and industry members.

II. Registration and Accommodations

A. Registration

    There is a registration fee to attend this meeting. The
registration fee is charged to help defray the costs of facilities,
meeting materials, and food. Seats are limited, and registration will
be on a first-come, first-served basis.
    To register, please complete registration online at http://www.diaglobal.org/. (FDA has verified the Web address, but FDA is not
responsible for subsequent changes to the Web site after this document
publishes in the Federal Register.) The costs of registration for the
different categories of attendees are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Category                               Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Representatives...................................       $1,350
Charitable Nonprofit/Academic..............................          675
Government.................................................          405
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Accommodations

    Attendees are responsible for their own hotel accommodations.
Attendees making reservations at the Grand Hyatt Washington are
eligible for a reduced rate of $209, not including applicable taxes.
This rate is available for a limited number of rooms. To receive the
reduced rate, hotel reservations must be made with onPeak and not
directly with the hotel. Contact information for onPeak is as follows:
Toll free in the United States 1-855-355-0302 or 1-212-532-1660. When
calling, please select option 1 for ``Hotel Reservations,'' and inform
the phone agent that you are making a reservation for Event #15011.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Meredith Kaganovskiy (DIA) or Robert.

T. Dorsam (FDA) (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Dated: August 27, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-21639 Filed 9-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32005-32006]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11953]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice for Charlotte Douglas International
Airport (CLT), Charlotte, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the Noise Exposure Maps (NEMs) submitted by the City
of Charlotte for Charlotte Douglas International Airport under the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq. (Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'')) and 14 CFR part
150 (hereinafter referred to as ``Part 150'') are in compliance with
applicable requirements.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's compliance
determination on the NEMs is April 12, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Braswell, Federal Aviation
Administration, Memphis Airports District Office, 2600 Thousand Oaks
Blvd., Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the NEMs submitted for the Charlotte Douglas International Airport
Airport (CLT) are in compliance with applicable requirements of Part
150, effective April 12, 2016. Under the Act, an airport operator
(hereinafter referred to as ``Sponsor'') may submit to the FAA NEMs
which meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land
uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of
projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations
will affect such maps. The Act requires that the Sponsor develop its
NEMs in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local
community, government agencies, and persons using the airport. The FAA
has relied on the certification by the City of Charlotte, under Sec.
150.21 of Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been
accomplished.
    An airport Sponsor who has submitted NEMs that are found by the FAA
to be in compliance with the requirements of Part 150 may submit a
Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) for FAA approval which sets forth the
measures the Sponsor has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing
non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-
compatible uses.
    The FAA has completed its review of the NEMs and accompanying
documentation submitted by City of Charlotte. The documentation that
constitutes the ``NEMs'' as defined in Sec.  150.7 of Part 150
includes: Exhibit 3-1, Existing (2015) Noise Contour; Exhibit 4-1,
Future (2020) Noise Contour; Exhibit C-11, Runway 18L Flight Tracks;
Exhibit C-12, Runway 18C Flight Tracks; Exhibit C-13, Runway 18R Flight
Tracks; Exhibit C-14, Runway 36R Flight Tracks; Exhibit C-15, Runway
36C Flight Tracks; Exhibit C-16, Runway 36L Flight Tracks; Exhibit C-
17, Runway 05 Flight Tracks; Exhibit C-18, Runway 23 Flight Tracks;
Exhibit C-19, Helicopter Flight Tracks; Table C-1, Distribution of
Average Daily Operations by Aircraft Category Existing (2015)
Conditions; Table C-2, Runway End Utilization--Existing (2015)
Conditions; Table C-3, Arrival Flight Track Utilization Percentages
Existing (2015) and Future (2020) Conditions; Table C-4, Departure
Flight Track Utilization Percentages Existing (2015) and Future (2020)
Conditions; Table C-5, Departure Trip Length Distribution Existing
(2015) Conditions; Table C-6, Aircraft Engine Run-Ups--Existing (2015)
Conditions; Table C-7, Distribution of Average Daily Operations by
Aircraft Type Future (2020) Conditions; Table C-8, Departure Trip
Length Distribution--Future (2020) Conditions; Table C-9, Ground Run-Up
Operations--Future (2020) Conditions; Appendix F. The FAA has
determined that these NEMs and accompanying documentation are in
compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is
effective on April 12, 2016.
    FAA's determination on the airport Sponsor's NEMs is limited to a
finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures
contained in Appendix A of Part 150. Such determination does not
constitute approval of the Sponsor's data, information, or plans, and
is not a commitment to approve a NCP or to fund the implementation of
that Program. If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of
specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a NEM
submitted under Sec.  47503 of the Act, it is emphasized that the FAA
is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of
specific properties with regard to the depicted noise exposure
contours, or in interpreting the NEMs to resolve questions concerning,
for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of
Sec.  47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the
ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local
government and remain unchanged by FAA's NEM compliance determination
under Part 150. The responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise
exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface
rests exclusively with the airport Sponsor that submitted those maps,
or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which
consultation is required under Sec.  47503 of the Act.
    Copies of the full NEM documentation are available for

examination by appointment at the following locations:

Federal Aviation Administration, Memphis Airports District Office, 2600
Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 2250, Memphis, TN 38118.
Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Southern Region Office, 1701
Columbia Ave., Suite 540, College Park, GA 30337.
Charlotte Douglas International Airport, 5501 Josh Birmingham Parkway,
Charlotte, NC 28208.

    Direct questions or to arrange an appointment to review the
documents to the individual named above under the heading, FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Memphis, TN, on May 11, 2016.
Phillip J. Braden,
Manager, Memphis Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2016-11953 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P