Reader's Guide: Streptomycin CRM: Lance Wormell EPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ SRRD Reader's Guide to the Streptomycin E Docket # OPP 2005 0493 Publication Date: August 16, 2006 EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to the Streptomycin E docket. The docket index lists the caption entries sequentially, while this document lists them by subject matter. The Agency is providing the " Readers Guide" to allow the reader to more easily access and navigate the various entries contained in the Streptomycin E docket.

Phase 3 Federal Register and Docket Organizational Documents:

Docket Entry 1. Federal Register Notification: Streptomycin ( August 16, 2006)

Docket Entry 2. Reader's Guide to Streptomycin: EPA HQ OPP 2005 0493 ( July 28, 2006)

Docket Entry 3. Streptomycin: Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Streptomycin ( June 30, 2006)

Docket Entry 4. Streptomycin: Combined Pesticidal and Pharmaceutical exposure to Oxytetracycline ( May 24, 2006)

Docket Entry 5. Streptomycin: Oxytetracycline & Streptomycin FDA response to EPA on aggregate exposure ( June 7, 2006)


                                        Summary of Public Comments and Responses on the Proposed Rule for the Major Source Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication NESHAP and the NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources                                                                                National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Residual Risk and Technology Review and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Source Technology Review                                                                (86 FR 1868, January 11, 2021)

                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                  Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards                      Sector Policies and Programs Division                        Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

                    (This page is intentionally left blank)

                          ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

                                   Acronym/                                  Abbreviation

                                  Definition    1-BP 1-bromopropane    Act or CAA Clean Air Act    APA Administrative Procedure Act    CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface    CFR Code of Federal Regulations    EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency    FR Federal Register    FPF Flexible Polyurethane Foam    HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants    HCl Hydrochloric Acid    NEI National Emissions Inventory    NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants    SSM Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction    TTN Technology Transfer Network

                    (This page is intentionally left blank)

1.0	Introduction

      On January 11, 2021 (86 FR 1868), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to revise the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations major sources (40 CFR 63 Subpart MMMMM) and the NESHAP for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication area sources (40 CFR 63 Subpart OOOOOO) under the authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). This document presents summaries of the comments that were submitted in response to this action and our responses to those comments for all comments not discussed in the preamble to the final rule. Within each comment summary, the EPA provides one or more Docket ID numbers for commenters who raised particular issues. However, the list of commenter ID numbers is not meant to be exhaustive. The EPA does not individually identify each and every commenter who made a certain point in all instances, particularly in cases where multiple commenters express essentially identical arguments. Although portions of the preamble to the final rule are paraphrased in this document, to the extent any ambiguity is introduced by paraphrasing, the preamble itself remains the definitive statement of the rationale for the final rule.       Four comment documents were received from industry representatives, environmental advocacy groups and individual persons during the public comment period. A list of the commenters, their affiliations, and the EPA docket number assigned to their correspondence is presented in Table 1-1. The EPA Docket contains all comment documents submitted, and the comments are available for viewing at the EPA Docket Center Reading Room, or electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572 by docket number.        TABLE 1-1. LIST OF COMMENTERS ON PROPOSED NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

                              Document ID[a][,b] Commenter Affiliation                                       37  Matt Simmers None stated                                       39 Russ Batson Polyurethane Foam Association                                       40 Jeannie Nguyen None stated                                       41 (not provided) Sierra Club and Earthjustice a Document ID identifies comments found in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572 by document number. [b] Individual comments from the public (and attachments submitted with comments) submitted to the docket are assigned a unique 4-digit docket number that follows the base docket number (i.e., EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572-XXXX, where "XXXX" represents the unique 4-digit document docket number). The unique document docket numbers presented in this table and document represent that unique docket number without the preceding 0s. For example, docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572-0041 is presented as 41 in this table and within the text of this document.          The following section of this document contains a summary of comments received on the proposed standards for the Flexible Polyurethane Foam (FPF) source categories, for all comments not discussed in the preamble to the final rule, as well as the EPA's responses to these comments.

2.0	Comments and Responses

Comment: Commenters 37 and 40 support the proposal and its effect in limiting backsliding. The commenters note that while the proposed requirements will not further reduce air pollution, they will limit backsliding through the monitoring requirements. Commenter 37 remarks that many pollutant regulations seem to fall behind in the implementation and monitoring of the standards, and the commenter added that by ensuring this hazardous pollutant is properly monitored, significant future harm may be prevented, or at least limited in its effect. Commenter 41 states that industries need to be monitored and kept in check, noting that it is difficult to hold large corporations accountable, so it is important to ensure restrictions on them are not loosened.

      Response: We appreciate the support for the proposal and agree that the proposed requirements for adhesive HAP content will ensure that the emission levels currently achieved in practice will be retained and will prevent an increase in emissions (i.e., backsliding) from adhesive use in the future.

Comment: Commenter 39 expresses that the residual risk review and technology review for these FPF NESHAPs are reasonable and supported by the available data. This commenter also states that they do not object to the five proposed rule amendments to the current NESHAPs for the FPF industry. The commenter observes that the proposal to establish a numeric limit for existing flame lamination operations emissions is consistent with the existing emissions test data for the industry. The commenter also notes that the proposed lowering of the HAP weight of an adhesive from 5% to 1% of the total weight for adhesives used in loop-slitting operations should not have an adverse impact on loop-slitting and is supported by the industry. The commenter also notes that methylene chloride is no longer used as a component of adhesive formulations and that most adhesives are now water-based. The commenter recognizes that the proposed removal of the exemption for periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) are consistent with court decisions requiring that CAA standards apply at all times, and accordingly the commenter supports the elimination of the requirement that each source develop an SSM plan, as well as the reporting requirements related to the SSM exemption. The commenter supports the requirement that FPF fabrication facilities submit electronic copies of required performance tests reports, performance evaluation reports and periodic reports to EPA and also reported that the content, layout and overall design of the proposed reporting template is satisfactory to them. The commenter expresses support for the proposed circumstances in which electronic reporting extensions may be provided and also considers the proposed compliance date to be reasonable.

Commenter 41 expressed support for four of the proposed rule changes. These include: (1) removing the exemption for excess emissions during SSM, (2) establishing emission standards for hydrochloric acid (HCl) emissions from existing flame laminators, (3) requiring electronic reporting, and (4) revising the definition of HAP-based adhesive to be 1% or more by weight of total HAP.

      Response: We appreciate the support for the proposal. We have retained these aspects of the proposal in the final rule.

Comment: Commenter 41 believes the proposal fails to satisfy the CAA's public participation requirements. The commenter indicates that the CAA provides a more protective process for certain air regulations, including detailed public notice and comment requirements, which build on and incorporate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Further, the commenter adds that the CAA requires the EPA to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, that "shall be accompanied by a statement of its basis and purpose" and include "a summary of . . . the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed rule." The commenter states that the EPA did not publish the actual proposed rule or proposed regulatory language at all, or some of the explanation for such changes. Instead, the commenter states that the EPA placed the regulatory language and explanations of it in a separate document in the docket, the commenter indicates. The commenter asserts that the EPA has violated public notice and comment requirements of the CAA and APA by failing to publish notice in the Federal Register of the proposed rule itself.

Commenter 41 adds that the EPA's failure is prejudicial to the ability of the public to be able to find and comment on the proposed regulatory changes because they are not part of the notice in the Federal Register. Even though that notice is labeled "notice of proposed rulemaking," it contains no proposed regulatory language, the commenter notes. This is extremely unusual as it is the EPA's regular practice to include this language at the end of the notice, before the Administrator's signature, the commenter adds.

Commenter 41 further claims that the CAA, relying on the APA, does not allow an agency to hide the core regulatory language in this way. The commenter indicates that the proposed and final regulatory language must be published in the Federal Register to satisfy the core public notice requirements and allow for meaningful comment. The commenter asserts that the EPA has also failed to ensure that there is a permanent, public record documenting the proposed and final changes to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), because only the Federal Register notices are also published in legal databases like Westlaw.

Therefore, in the commenter's opinion, for any changes the EPA seeks to finalize, the EPA should publish the proposed language and necessary basis for public comment in the Federal Register, to remove the prejudicial effect on the public's ability to comment, before it finalizes the rule. The commenter states that failing to do so will violate core procedural requirements of the CAA that are also essential to protect the Biden-Harris Administration's commitment to good government and transparency, and especially to the public's right to know about and have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the EPA's rulemaking process.

      Response: The proposal met all APA and CAA notice-and-comment requirements. Nothing in the APA or the CAA, including the language the commenter cites, requires EPA to publish proposed rule text in the Federal Register. The commenter suggests that because the EPA did not publish the proposed rule text, the EPA failed to meet the CAA 307(d)(3) requirement to publish a "notice of proposed rulemaking." However, the requirement to publish a "notice of proposed rulemaking" is not a requirement to publish "proposed rule text." Section 307(d)(3) specifies the required elements of a "notice of proposed rulemaking," and "proposed rule text" is not a required element. The elements the commenter cites that are required to be included in the notice of proposed rulemaking (a "statement of basis and purpose," "a summary of . . . the major legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed rule, etc.") were included and the commenter does not suggest otherwise.

      The APA does not require publication of proposed rule text in the Federal Register either. Section 553(b)(3) of the APA provides that a notice of proposed rulemaking shall include "either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved" (emphases added). Thus, the APA clearly provides flexibility to describe the "subjects and issues involved" as an alternative to inclusion of the "terms or substance" of the proposed rule. See also Rybachek v. U.S. E.P.A., 904 F.2d 1276, 1287 (9th Cir. 1990) (EPA's failure to propose in advance the actual wording of a regulation does not make the regulation invalid where EPA's discussion of the regulatory provisions "clearly describe `the subjects and issues involved.'").              The commenter claims that the EPA did not publish "some of the explanation" for the proposed amendatory regulatory text. However, the commenter does not identify any specific regulatory text that was not explained or specify any deficiency in any explanation of regulatory text in the Federal Register notice. Such a generalized objection is not sufficiently specific. See, e.g., Appalachian Power Co. v. E.P.A., 251 F.3d 1026, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("`An objection must be made with sufficient specificity reasonably to alert the agency.'" (quoting Tex Tin Corp. v. EPA, 935 F.2d 1321, 1323 (D.C. Cir. 1991)).              The commenter makes a vague assertion that the EPA's approach was prejudicial to the ability of the public to be able to find and comment on the proposed regulatory changes, but the commenter does not claim any actual difficulty in finding or commenting on the proposed rule language. The EPA approach was not prejudicial to the commenter or any member of the public. The notice of proposed rulemaking clearly explained that the proposed amendatory language and a redline strikeout version of subpart MMMMM showing proposed changes were available in the docket and on EPA's website:                    The proposed changes to the CFR that would be necessary to incorporate the changes proposed in this action are set out in an attachment to the memorandum titled Proposed Regulation Edits for 40 CFR Part 63, subparts MMMMM and OOOOOO, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0572). This document includes the specific proposed amendatory language for revising the CFR and, for the convenience of interested parties, a redline version of the regulations. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will also post a copy of this memorandum and the attachment to https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/flexiblepolyurethane-foam-fabricationoperations-national-emission.                     National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operations Residual Risk and Technology Review and Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Source Technology Review, 86 FR 1868 (Jan. 11, 2021).              Although the EPA's recent practice has generally been to publish proposed amendatory regulatory text, the EPA's practice has varied. See, e.g., Hazardous Air Pollutants: Proposed Regulations Governing Constructed, Reconstructed or Modified Major Sources, 59 FR 15504 (April 1, 1994) ("The proposed regulatory text is not included in the Federal Register notice, but is available in Docket No. A-91-64 or by request from the EPA contact persons designated earlier in this note. The proposed regulatory language is also available on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN), of EPA's electronic bulletin boards."); Federal Standards for Marine Tank Vessel Loading and Unloading Operations and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Marine Tank Vessel Loading and Unloading Operations, 59 FR 25004 (May 13, 1994) ("The proposed regulatory text and other materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket."). Even when we do include the proposed text in the Federal Register, we often include a redline version of proposed regulations in the docket for rulemakings to assist the public in understanding the proposed regulatory changes. In our experience, stakeholders find the redline version far more useful than the proposed amendatory language in the format required by the Office of the Federal Register. Although appropriate for the task of revising the CFR, this language can be difficult to assess without the accompanying full regulatory text. Given this, and given that we rarely receive comments on the proposed amendatory language or on proposed regulatory language at all, we determined that for rulemakings such as these, it would be more efficient to take the approach here of making both easily accessible but not including the proposed amendatory text in the notice.

Comment: Commenter 41 is opposed to the proposed compliance reporting requirements that allow for compliance extensions when due to web outages or other force majeure events. The commenter states that the EPA is creating an unlawful exemption, labeled as an extension for compliance reporting, which would allow unreported exceedances to go unchecked, indefinitely. The commenter declares that the EPA should ensure that if there is a need for a reporting extension, the EPA would require the report by a prompt new enforceable deadline.

      Response: The commenter asserts that the brief, case-by-case extension of report submittal deadlines is an unlawful exemption [from compliance with] the emissions standards. This is not the case. The proposed provisions do not include an exception or exemption to reporting, much less an exemption from compliance with the numerical emission standards, but only a method for requesting an extension of the reporting deadline. Reporters are required to justify their request and identify a reporting date. There is no predetermined timeframe for the length of extension that can be granted, as this is something best determined by the Administrator (i.e., the EPA Administrator or delegated authority as defined in 40 CFR 63.2) when reviewing the circumstances surrounding the request. Different circumstances may require a different length of extension for electronic reporting. For example, a tropical storm may delay electronic reporting for a day, but a Hurricane Katrina-scale event may delay electronic reporting much longer, especially if the facility has no power and, as such, the owner or operator has no ability to access electronically stored data or to submit reports electronically. The Administrator will be the most knowledgeable about the events leading to the request for extension and will assess whether an extension is appropriate and, if so, a reasonable length for the extension. The Administrator may even request that the report be sent in hardcopy until electronic reporting can be resumed. While no new fixed-duration deadline is set, the regulation requires that the report be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) outage or after the force majeure event resolves.               The concept of force majeure has been implemented by the EPA in this context since May 2007 within the CAA requirements through the performance test extensions provided in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(4) and 60.8(a)(1). Like the performance test extensions, the approval of a requested extension of an electronic reporting deadline is at the discretion of the Administrator.        Comment: Commenter 41 states that the EPA has inadequate emissions data for the FPF manufacturing source category and is concerned that the risk assessment may not include all emissions and health risks. The commenter states that the EPA believes the only HAP emitted from the source category is HCl, but that the Agency has not demonstrated there are no emissions of other pollutants, such as other HAP or 1-bromopropane (1-BP), that may be in flame retardants. The commenter asserts that the EPA must evaluate the current use of HAP-containing flame retardants in foam and revise the emission standards to require phase-out of those flame retardants.

      Response: Under the CAA (42 U.S.C. § 7412(f)(2)), the EPA has a legal obligation to conduct the risk and technology review using the best available data and tools. We have done that here using the best available emissions information, including the National Emissions Inventory (NEI), the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and emissions test data provided by the manufacturers. No HAP other than HCl was reported from foam fabrication operations in any of these data sources. The EPA has no information, nor was any provided during the public comment period, from which to conclude that any HAP emissions are missing from the data or analyses previously performed. Therefore, we continue to rely on these data and analyses for the final rule.


[Federal Register: August 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 147)]
[Notices]
[Page 42190-42192]
[DOCID:fr01au07-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56146; File No. SR-NASD-2007-053]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval
of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.

July 26, 2007.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 24, 2007, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change to amend the Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of NASD (``Certificate'') as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
NASD. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on
the proposed rule change from interested persons and is simultaneously
approving the proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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

    NASD proposes to amend its Certificate to reflect the governance
and related changes proposed by NASD to accommodate the consolidation
of the member firm regulatory functions of NASD and NYSE Regulation,
Inc. and to conform the Certificate to the amended NASD By-Laws. The
proposed amendments to the Certificate also reflect NASD's change in
corporate name to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') as of the closing of the Transaction (defined below). The
text of the proposed rule change, including the Certificate, is
available at NASD, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://nasd.complinet.com
.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASD 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 III below. NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On November 28, 2006, NASD and the NYSE Group, Inc. (``NYSE
Group'') announced a plan to consolidate their member regulation
operations into a combined organization (``Transaction'') that will be
the sole U.S. private-sector provider of member firm regulation for
securities firms that conduct business with the public. This
consolidation will streamline the broker-dealer regulatory system,
combine technologies, permit the establishment of a single set of rules

and group examiners with complementary areas of expertise in a single
organization--all of which will serve to enhance oversight of U.S.
securities firms and help ensure investor protection. Moreover, NASD
notes that the new organization will be committed to reducing
regulatory costs and burdens for firms of all sizes through greater
regulatory efficiency.
    On January 19, 2007, NASD held a special meeting of the members of
NASD eligible to vote on amendments to the NASD By-Laws. A quorum of
members entitled to vote on the matter was present, in person or by
proxy, at such meeting, and a majority of the quorum approved the
amendments to the NASD's By-Laws. On March 19, 2007, NASD filed with
the Commission a proposed rule change to amend the NASD By-Laws to
implement the governance and related changes to accommodate the
consolidation of the member regulatory functions of NASD and NYSE
Regulation, Inc.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55495 (March 20,
2007), 72 FR 14149 (March 26, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-023). Today, the
Commission approved the amendments to NASD's By-Laws proposed in
connection with the Transaction. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 56145 (July 26, 2007) (``Release No. 34-56145'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to make the necessary
amendments to the Certificate to reflect the governance and related
changes in connection with the Transaction, the related changes to the
NASD By-Laws, and NASD's change in corporate name to FINRA as of the
date of closing of the Transaction.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Article XXII, Section 3 of the NASD By-Laws, as amended in
Release 34 -56145, supra note 3, addresses the term of office of
Governors for a transitional period commencing on the date of
closing of the Transaction and ending on the third anniversary of
the date of closing. Among other things, Article XXII, Section 3
provides that ``* * * in the event the remaining term of office of
any Large Firm, Mid Size Firm or Small Firm Governor position that
becomes vacant is for more than 12 months, nominations shall be made
as set forth above in this paragraph, but such vacancy shall be
filled by the members entitled to vote thereon at a meeting thereof
convened to vote thereon (emphasis added).'' Article Eleventh of the
Certificate does not reiterate the applicable nomination process in
such instances, insofar as the text solely restates those persons
entitled to make nominations as reflected elsewhere in Article
Eleventh. In short, in filling any such vacancies, NASD represents
that the nominations will be made in accordance with the provisions
of Article XXII, Section 3 of the amended NASD By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effective date of the proposed rule change will be the closing
of the Transaction. The proposed rule change will not become effective
if the Transaction does not close.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of section 15A of the Act,\5\ including section 15A(b)(2) of
the Act,\6\ in that it will permit FINRA to carry out the purposes of
the Act, to comply with the Act, and to enforce compliance by FINRA
members, and persons associated with FINRA members, with the Act, the
rules and regulations thereunder, and FINRA rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2007-053 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-053. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2007-053 and should be
submitted on or before August 22, 2007.

IV. Commission Findings

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities association.\7\
Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with section 15A(b)(2) of the Act \8\ in that it will permit FINRA to
be so organized to carry out the purposes of the Act, to comply with
the Act and to enforce compliance by FINRA members and persons
associated with members with the Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and FINRA rules. Further, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with section 15A(b)(6) of the Act
\9\ in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts
and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(2).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change amends the Certificate to conform to the
changes in the NASD By-Laws that the Commission is approving today, and
to reflect the NASD's new name, FINRA.\10\ Specifically, the amended
Certificate incorporates the governance structure in FINRA's By-Laws,
as approved today, including with respect to the three-year
transitional period and thereafter. The proposed revisions to the
Certificate do not make changes to the governance of FINRA not already
contemplated by the proposed changes to FINRA's By-Laws, which were
published for comment and

approved by the Commission.\11\ The Commission believes that the
proposed changes to the Certificate are consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Release No. 34-56145, supra note 3.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposal prior to
the thirtieth day after the proposal was published for comment in the
Federal Register. This approval allows the proposed rule change to take
effect without delay. The proposed revisions to the Certificate do not
make changes to the governance of FINRA not already contemplated by the
proposed changes to FINRA's By-Laws, which were published for comment
and approved by the Commission.\12\ Therefore, interested persons were
provided the opportunity to submit comments on essentially identical
changes. For this reason, the Commission finds good cause, consistent
with section 19(b)(2) of the Act, to grant accelerated approval to the
proposed changes to the Certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause, consistent with section 19(b)(2)
of the Act, to grant accelerated approval to the proposed change of the
NASD's name to FINRA because it is technical and does not impact
members or other market participants.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-NASD-2007-053) is hereby approved on
an accelerated basis.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14856 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 28374]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11571]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-128-001]

SourceGas Arkansas Inc.; Formerly Arkansas Western Gas Company;
Notice of Compliance Filing

    Take notice that on April 27, 2012, SourceGas Arkansas Inc formerly
known as Arkansas Western Gas Company submitted a revised Statement of
Operating Conditions to comply with an unpublished Delegated letter
order issued on April 24, 2012.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 14, 2012.

    Dated: May 7, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11571 Filed 5-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63341-63343]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25179]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0754; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-136-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was

prompted by reports of hydraulic fluid loss from the reservoir of the
main landing gear's (MLG's) alternate extension system. This proposed
AD would require inspection for correct assembly of the MLG's alternate
extension system reservoir lid, and corrective action if necessary. We
are proposing this AD to, in the event of a failure of the primary MLG
extension system, prevent failure of the alternate MLG extension system
to fully extend the MLG into a down-and-locked position, which could
result in collapse of both MLG during touchdown.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 8,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For Bombardier service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com. For Parker service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact Parker Aerospace, 14300 Alton Parkway,
Irvine, CA, 92618; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.parker.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0754; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0754;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-136-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-15, dated June 6, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Several cases have been reported of hydraulic fluid loss from
the main landing gear (MLG) alternate extension system reservoir and
in one case, the reservoir was found empty. The cause was determined
to be an incorrectly assembled reservoir lid. In the event of a
failed primary MLG extension system, an alternate MLG extension
system with an empty reservoir may not be able to fully extend the
MLG into the down and locked position, resulting in an unsafe
landing configuration.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the [general visual] inspection of
the MLG alternate extension system reservoir lid for correct
assembly and the required rectification [i.e., corrective action
which consists of repairing the lid assembly].

    The unsafe landing configuration could result in collapse of both
MLG during touch down. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2014-0754.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-29-34, dated May 9, 2013,
including Parker Service Bulletin 82910012-29-431, dated October 22,
2012. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 173 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $58,820, or $340
per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 2 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of
$170 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft
that might need this action.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that

section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil
aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices,
methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in
air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or
develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2014-0754; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-136-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 8, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-401, -402, and -
403 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001
through 4424 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic
Power.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of hydraulic fluid loss from the
reservoir of the main landing gear's (MLG's) alternate extension
system. We are issuing this AD to, in the event of a failure of the
primary MLG extension system, prevent failure of the alternate MLG
extension system to fully extend the MLG into a down-and-locked
position, which could result in collapse of both MLG during
touchdown.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action

    Within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a general visual inspection
of the MLG alternate extension system reservoir lid for correct
assembly, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-29-34, dated May 9, 2013, including Parker Service Bulletin
82910012-29-431, dated October 22, 2012. Do all applicable
corrective actions within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Bombardier All Operator Message 543, dated
October 17, 2012, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada
Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-15, dated June 6,
2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0754.
    (2) For Bombardier service information identified in this AD,
contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com. For Parker service information identified
in this AD, contact Parker Aerospace, 14300 Alton Parkway, Irvine,
CA 92618; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.parker.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 15, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-25179 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6416-6417]
[DOCID:fr09fe10-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request; Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extensions:
    Rule 12d1-3; OMB Control No. 3235-0109; SEC File No. 270-116.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Exchange Act Rule 12d1-3 (17 CFR 240.12d1-3) requires a
certification that a security has been approved by an exchange for
listing and registration pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l(d)) to be filed with the
Commission. The information required under Rule 12d1-3 must be filed
with the Commission and is publicly available. We estimate that it
takes approximately one-half hour to provide the information required
under Rule 12d1-3 and that the information is filed by approximately
688 respondents annually for a total annual reporting burden of 344
burden hours (.5 hours per response x 688 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to: Shagufta_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/CIO, Securities
and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way,
Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: February 1, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2741 Filed 2-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Modular Concept of European Directives

A

Internal Control of Production

Manufacturer keeps technical documentation about design for requests from public authorities

B  EC Type Examination

Manufacturer supplies documentation and test sample to Notified Body

Notified Body checks conformity with Essential Health and Safety Requirements (ESR), conducts testing, and issues a type test certificate

G

Unit Verification

Manufacturer prepares technical documentation and product

H

Full QA

Manufacturer has an approved Quality Assurance System including design of products

Notified body checks conformity of design and issues a certificate based on the design examination

H

Manufacturer as approved QA System  for production and testing and declares conformity with ESR

G

Notified Body checks compliance of product with ESR and issues certificate of conformity

Manufacturer declares conformity with ESR

F

Product Verification

Notified Body checks conformity of product and certifies conformity

Manufacturer declares conformity with ERS

E

Product Quality Assurance

Notified Body inspects QA

Manufacturer has approved QA system for production and testing and declares conformity with ESR

D

Production Quality Assurance

Notified body inspects QA

Manufacturer has approved QA system for production and testing and declares conformity with ESR

C

Conformity to Type

Notified Body checks certain details of each product or takes random samples

Manufacturer declares conformity with certified type testing

A

Manufacturer declares conformity with ESR

Aa

Notified Body checks certain details of each product or takes random samples

Design

Phase

Production Phase


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 202 (Thursday, October 18, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64051-64052]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25641]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 536

[NHTSA-2010-0131; EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799; FRL-9706-5]
RIN 2127-AK79; RIN 2060-AQ54

2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

AGENCY:  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY:  This document contains corrections to the final rule
regulation which was published in the Federal Register of Monday,
October 15, 2012 (77 FR 62624). The final rule established fuel economy
standards for light-duty vehicles under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA), 49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.

DATES: Effective Date: This correcting amendment is effective on
December 14, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Rebecca Yoon, Office of Chief
Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    NHTSA and EPA published in the Federal Register of October 15,
2012, final rules to establish coordinated standards to improve fuel
economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles manufactured
for sale in the United States in model years 2017 and beyond. The final
rules, consistent with President Obama's directive to the agencies on
May 21, 2010, respond to the country's critical need to reduce oil
consumption and address global climate change.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final regulations inadvertently misprinted one of
the values for ``VMTu,'' which represents lifetime vehicle
miles traveled for the model year and compliance category in which a
traded or transferred credit is used for compliance in 49 CFR part 536.
The value printed for passenger cars in model year 2011 was
``152,922,'' when the value intended to be printed, consistent with
prior rulemakings, is ``150,922.'' To correct the mistake, NHTSA is
replacing the value in the table to alleviate any confusion.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 536

    Fuel economy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 49 CFR part 536 is corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:

PART 536--TRANSFER AND TRADING OF FUEL ECONOMY CREDITS

0
1. The authority citation for part 536 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 32903, delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

0
2. Revise Sec.  536.4(c) to read as follows:

Sec.  536.4  Credits.

* * * * *
    (c) Adjustment factor. When traded or transferred and used, fuel
economy credits are adjusted to ensure fuel oil savings is preserved.
For traded credits, the user (or buyer) must multiply the calculated
adjustment factor by the number of its shortfall credits it plans to
offset in order to determine the number of equivalent credits to
acquire from the earner (or seller). For transferred credits, the user
of credits must multiply the calculated adjustment factor by the number
of its shortfall credits it plans to offset in order to determine the
number of equivalent credits to transfer from the compliance category
holding the available credits. The adjustment factor is calculated
according to the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18OC12.016

Where:

A = Adjustment factor applied to traded and transferred credits.
VMTe = Lifetime vehicle miles traveled as provided in the
following table for the model year and compliance category in which
the credit was earned;
VMTu = Lifetime vehicle miles traveled as provided in the
following table for the model year and compliance category in which
the credit is used for compliance;

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Lifetime vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
            Model year            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      2011       2012       2013       2014       2015       2016     2017-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger Cars...................    150,922    177,238    177,366    178,652    180,497    182,134      195,264
Light Trucks.....................    172,552    208,471    208,537    209,974    212,040    213,954      225,865
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MPGse = Required fuel economy standard for the
originating (earning) manufacturer, compliance category, and model
year in which the credit was earned;
MPGae = Actual fuel economy for the originating
manufacturer, compliance category, and model year in which the
credit was earned;
MPGsu = Required fuel economy standard for the user
(buying) manufacturer, compliance category, and model year in which
the credit is used for compliance; and
MPGau = Actual fuel economy for the user manufacturer,
compliance category, and model year in which the credit is used for
compliance.

Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2012-25641 Filed 10-17-12; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


                             SUPPORTING STATEMENT
                                EPA ICR 2183.06
                      DRUG TESTING FOR CONTRACT EMPLOYEES

1. Identification of the Information Collection

      (a) Title of the Information Collection

       "Drug Testing for Contractor Employees (Renewal)," EPA ICR Number 2183.06 and OMB Control Number 2030-0044.

      (b) Short Characterization

      This Performance Work Statement applies to a contractor who performs response services at sensitive sites with serious security concerns where the Agency and public interest would best be protected through drug testing of contractor employees.  The Contracting Officer or On-Scene Coordinator will designate significant security concerns in the contractual tasking document when the situation warrants.  The Performance Work Statement requires the contractor to test employees for the use of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP), and any other controlled substances.  Only contractor employees who have been tested within the previous 90 calendar days and have passing drug test results may be directly engaged in on-site response work and/or on-site related activities at designated sites with significant security concerns.
      The EPA uses contractors to perform services throughout the nation in response to environmental emergencies involving the release, or threatened release, of oil, radioactive materials or hazardous chemicals that may potentially affect communities and the surrounding environment.  Releases may be accidental, deliberate, or may be caused by natural disasters.  Contractors responding to any of these types of incidents may be responsible for testing their employees for the use of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP), and any other controlled substances. The testing for drugs must be completed prior to contract employee performance.  The contractor shall maintain records associated with all drug tests.

      (c) Terms of OMB Clearance

      OMB Terms of Clearance: "The Agency has clarified that it does not require drug testing of contractor employees, but rather that it requires the contractor to provide employees that have been drug tested. Should the agency begin to require drug testing, this ICR should be modified to reflect appropriate protections of respondent privacy."

      EPA contractors performing emergency response services at non-Federal facilities are not subject to the requirements and standards of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12), e.g., leased office buildings, emergency response sites, private residences, schools, sites of law enforcement activity.  This type of location is not covered under HSPD-12.
There are no requirements for drug testing of contractor employees working at either Federal or non-Federal facilities under HSPD-12.
2. Need For and Use of The Collection

      (a) Need/authority for the Collection

      The legal authority for this collection is 5 CFR Parts 731, 732, and 736.  The EPA has a responsibility to protect the public and Agency and contractor employees working on an emergency response incident by ensuring employees are not under the influence of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP), and any other controlled substances.  This process is necessary to allow the EPA to meet its responsibilities and mitigate the threat to the public health, welfare and the environment.

      (b) Uses/users of the Data

      Information is collected by response contractors for performing drug tests on contract employees before the individual employees perform contractual services for the EPA.

3. Nonduplication, Consultation, and Other Collection Criteria

      (a) Nonduplication

      Information requested from a contractor's employee to determine suitability to perform on a response contract is unique to a specific individual; this information cannot be obtained from any other source.

      (b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to Office of Management and Budget.

      EPA published a notice in the Federal Register at 80 FR 6704 on February 6, 2015 soliciting public comment on this ICR.  No comments were received.

      (c) Consultations

      To determine contractor burden associated with the information collection identified in this request, the following vendors were previously contacted:

      __Representative__		               Firm___________	          ____Phone___
      Lisa Friday		            Weston Solutions<PHONE_NUMBER>
      Eric Simpson	  		Sovereign Consulting<PHONE_NUMBER>
      Joe Baer	  		Tech Law<PHONE_NUMBER>
      Mark Ruck			Environmental Restoration<PHONE_NUMBER>
      Sherry Maule			Guardian Environmental<PHONE_NUMBER>

      Each individual consulted indicated that he/she understood the need for the information collection and did not find the collection excessively burdensome.  Many contractors indicated they perform drug testing as a normal course of business. Estimated time to complete the information collection is described in Section 6, "Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection."

      (d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

      The information provided by the contractors' employees is collected once prior to the employee performing under a response contract work on-site for the EPA and generally every quarter to ensure employees can meet the requirement of having been tested every 90 days prior to starting work on a sensitive site.  The requirement for drug testing cannot be met with a less frequent collection.

      (e) General Guidelines

      The information contained in this ICR is in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's general guidelines for federal data collection, except that small entities have to follow the same collection procedures as other respondents.

      (f) Confidentiality

      The EPA contractor is responsible for collecting and maintaining information under this collection of information; therefore, each contractor will have his own procedures for ensuring confidentiality.

      The EPA contractor is responsible for having the drug testing performed, and for providing, for work at sensitive sites, only those individuals who have passed the test within the previous 90 days.

      (g) Sensitive Questions

      The contractor will collect and maintain employee information.  The EPA will not collect contractor employee information nor maintain it.  EPA is responsible for receiving only the notification from contractors of the passing status of proposed employees and the date of the testing.  Therefore, information being requested by EPA is commonly collected as a normal business practice and is not unduly sensitive.

4. The Respondents and the Information Received

      (a) Respondents/North American Industry Classification System Codes

      Notification is provided from contractors of the passing status of proposed contractor and subcontractor employees who will perform services with regard to environmental emergencies involving the release, or threatened release, of oil, radioactive materials or hazardous chemicals that may potentially affect communities and the surrounding environment.  All contractor employees who will perform on response actions are subject to drug testing prior to contract performance.  Typically, these contractor respondents fall into the following North American Industry Classification System code: 562910 Remediation Services.

      (b) Information Requested

      EPA is only requesting information on the status of proposed employees' drug test and the date of the drug testing.

5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management

      (a) Agency Activities

      The EPA contracting officers are responsible for ensuring that they have received notification from the contractor that all of its employees working under the contract at a response site with security concerns have passed the drug test for the use of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP), and any other controlled substances.

      (b) Collection Methodology and Management

      The information is collected by each contractor from each employee who will be working on a sensitive response site.  Submissions are accepted in any format, as long as they provide a passing status of proposed employees and the date the test was given.  No other information is submitted to the Agency, but compliance is mandatory and no employee may work on a response site with security concerns without passing the drug test.  Only those contractor employees who have been tested within the previous 90 calendar days may be directly engaged in on-site response work and/or on-site related activities at designated sites with significant security concerns.

      (c) Small Entity Flexibility

      Separate or further simplified requirements for small entities are not practical because the stated objectives cannot be met under such alternatives.  The requirements of the information collection apply to the awardees of the contract.  Reasonable expense associated with the Drug Testing is reimbursable; therefore, small businesses are not expected to experience financial difficulties in fulfilling these requirements.  There are numerous commercial sources that perform drug tests.

      (d) Collection Schedule

      Information on the passing status of proposed employees and the date the test was given will be collected periodically as individuals are requested to work on a response site location under new or existing contracts.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

      (a) Estimation of Respondent Burden

      Respondent burden estimates for this collection are based upon interviews with the contractors identified in 3(b) above and discussions with Agency personnel.  The Agency anticipates that the contractor burden for complying with this requirement includes the time it takes for employees to provide the required information, the administrative time to manage a drug testing subcontract, the time to notify the Agency, and the effort to maintain the records for 4 years.

      (b) Estimation of Respondent Costs

            (i) Estimating Labor Costs

                           Respondent Cost Estimate
                                          Burden	 Loaded
Step	Collection Activity  		Labor Cat.	  Hours__	    Rate__	    Cost_
   1.  Time to provide sample		Employees	1.5   hours	$65.47		$  98.21
   2.  Cost of Drug Test								$  44.00
      (subcontract)
   3.  Manage Drug Test		HR Manager	.25   hour	$172.36	$  43.09
   subcontract & review results
   4.  Submit notification 		HR Manager	.25 hour	$172.36	$  43.09
   5.  Maintain files		       Admin. Support 	.25 hour        	$ 53.38	$  13.35
            				2.25 hours
            Estimated Respondent Cost per Drug Test                       $241.74

      Step 1 of the information collection is completed by a contractor employee working at a sensitive site. The one and a half hour estimate is based upon information provided by the contractors who were previously interviewed for this ICR.  The contractors interviewed indicated that while it takes .15 minutes to provide a specimen, this may be realistic for the time it takes the employee to physically provide a specimen, it does not take into account travelling to a lab, waiting to be called for the testing and returning to the job site.  The contractors interviewed indicated the total process takes from 1-2 hours.  The cost for Step 2, having a third party perform a drug test, is based upon market research and input from the vendors surveyed.  Vendors' costs for this ranged from $28-$85.  OHS Health and Safety Services, one of the largest drug testing companies in the United States, estimates average costs at $44 per test.  OHS' prices range from $25-$65 depending on the volume purchased.  This data can be found on the OHS website at www.ohsinc.com.  For estimating purposes for this ICR, the $44 average was used. Steps 3 and 4, reviewing suitability and notifying EPA, are performed by a human resource type manager responsible for personnel management and are estimated at .25 of an hour based on vendor input. Administrative support personnel are responsible for completing step 5, which includes filing the background check in personnel records. This was estimated at .25 of an hour based on vendor input.

      The cost associated with this effort was estimated using an hourly rate based upon the May 2013 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States (http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#43-0000) published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Previously the National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, May 2010 published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics was used. The categories used included the following: Hazardous Materials Removal Workers, Human Resource Manager, and Office and Admin Support.

      Since the labor rates used in this estimate are from 2013, an escalation factor of 3% was applied for each year to determine an average wage for the respective year.  The cost for each labor category was determined by multiplying the escalated hourly labor rate by an estimated loading factor of 2.95 to reflect industries' overhead, fringe benefits, and general and administrative costs for each year (2014-2017) that the ICR will be in effect.  The 2.95 estimate was provided by an EPA cost analyst as representative of labor related burdens experienced by EPA contractors.  The loaded labor costs for 2014 thru 2017 were added together then divided by three (number of years for the ICR) to arrive at an annualized labor cost for each labor category.

      The following are the loaded labor rates used in the calculations in the table above:

Employees:
2013 = $20.30
2014 = ($20.30 x 1.03) $20.91
2015 = ($20.91x 1.03) $21.54 x 2.95 = $ 63.54
2016 = ($21.54 x 1.03) $22.19 x 2.95 = $ 65.45
2017 = ($22.19 x 1.03) $22.86 x 2.95 = $ 67.42
                                  $196.41/3 = $65.47

Human Resource Manager:
2013 = $53.45
2014 = ($53.35 x 1.03) $55.05
2015 = ($55.05 x 1.03) $56.71 x 2.95 = $ 167.28
2016 = ($56.71 x 1.03) $58.41 x 2.95 = $ 172.31
2017 = ($58.41 x 1.03) $60.16 x 2.95 = $ 177.48
                                  $ 517.07/3 = $172.36

Administrative Support:
2013 = $16.78
2014 = ($16.78 x 1.03) $17.28
2015 = ($17.28 x 1.03) $17.80 x 2.95 = $ 50.36
2016 = ($17.80 x 1.03) $18.33 x 2.95 = $ 54.09
2017 = ($18.33 x 1.03) $18.88 x 2.95 = $ 55.70
                                 $160.15/3 = $53.38

 (ii)  Capital/ Start-up Costs

      Respondents will not be required to acquire capital goods to provide the requested information; therefore, capital start-up costs have not been included in this estimate.

      (iii)  Operating and Maintenance Costs

      Operating and maintenance costs, which include such items as file storage, photocopying, and postage, will be nominal.

      (c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

      Agency burden for responses to background check and suitability determinations.

                          Agency Burden Cost Estimate
                                 Labor			    Loaded
Step	Collection Activity		Category        Burden Hours	   _Rate_	Cost

   1.  Ensure Compliance and		GS-13		.25 hour	   $88.13	$22.03
        document file
				      Estimated Agency cost per background check $22.03

      Drug testing is the responsibility of the EPA contractor.  The Agency is primarily responsible for ensuring that contractors notify the Agency that its employees have passed the drug test.  The Agency's current effort is estimated to be approximately 15 minutes and performed by an employee at the GS-13 level.  This is less than previous years, which was estimated at thirty minutes. After interviewing contracting officers, it was apparent that the process has become more efficient and takes less time. The GS-13 per hour salary for 2013 with a locality pay for "Rest of US" is $39.21. Government wages were frozen for 2013. The GS-13 per hour salary for 2014 with a locality pay for "Rest of US" is $39.60. An escalation factor has been applied using a factor of 3.0% based upon historical cost of living increases for federal workers.  These wage rates were then multiplied by a factor of 2.16 to reflect Federal employee benefits. The 2.16 estimate was provided by an EPA cost analyst as representative of labor related burdens for government employees. The loaded labor costs for 2014 thru 2017 were added together then divided by three (number of years for the ICR) for an annualized loaded rate of $88.13 for the three years the ICR is in effect.

2014 = 		  $39.60
2015 = 		  $39.60 x 2.16....= $85.54
2016 = ($39.60 x 1.03) $40.79 x 2.16     = $88.10
2017 = ($40.79 x 1.03) $42.01 x 2.16   .. =$90.75
                                       $264.39/3 = $88.13

       (d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden

      All EPA contractor personnel performing at an EPA designated sensitive site with significant security concerns must be tested for the presence of marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, phencyclidine (PCP), and any other controlled substances.  A site with significant security concerns is determined by the Agency and could be sites that involve law enforcement activities, any indoor cleanups (including household residences), drug lab cleanups, and response actions at geographically sensitive locations such as military installations and government buildings.  The number of contractor employees expected to submit to drug testing is 1,350 for the life of this ICR (3 years).  This number was determined by input provided from the respondents estimating the number of drug tests that they provide in a year because they would be considered to have security concerns for the Agency.  Annually, the Agency responds to roughly 450 incidences with an estimated 5% of these responses, 23, that may be designated as having security concerns for the Agency.

      There are both small and large businesses working in the field with diverse response site situations that require large variations in the number of employees.  Contractors may be on-site for a few days or many years depending on the situation.  There are currently 44 contracts which require contractors to perform drug testing on employees working at sensitive sites.  The number of annual drug tests performed by the companies who responded ranged from 0 to 300, this takes into account multiple tests for employees who are being tested quarterly.  The government estimate is 450 tests for all contractors per year.

      (e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

            (i) Respondent Tally

      Total estimated annual hours per respondent for this request is 1,012.5 hours at a cost of $108,783. The hours were calculated by multiplying the number of hours per occurrence, 2.25, by the estimated number of tests per year, 450.  The cost was derived by multiplying the respondent cost per collection, $241.74, by the estimated 450 occurrences per year. The total cost over the life of this ICR, three years, is $326,349.  The previous ICR estimated cost was $102,870. Interviews with contractors showed that the type of manager who performs work associated with background checks is a Human Resource Manager; therefore, an average rate for a Human Resource Manager was used for current calculations.

            (ii) The Agency Tally

      The total annual Agency burden hours for this collection request are 112.5 hours.  This is derived by taking the total number of contractor employees expected to submit to drug testing, 450 per year, by the estimated burden hours of .25 per occurrence. The total annual Agency burden cost is estimated at $9,913.50.  This is calculated by multiplying the estimated burden hours, .25, by the estimated hourly rate of $88.13 for a total of $22.03 for one collection request.  Then, the $22.03 is multiplied by the estimated number of annual occurrences, 450, for a total of $9,913.50.  The estimated Agency cost over the life of this ICR, three years, is $29,740.50

       (f) Reasons for Change in Burden

      As detailed above, this rate was based on information provided by the respondents as well as online market research. There is no change in the hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

      (g) Burden Statement

      The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.   An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OARM-2014-0858 which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OARM-2014-0858 and OMB Control Number 2030-0044 in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 100 (Friday, May 23, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29699]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12002]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0013]
RIN 0910-AG98

Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food; Extension of
Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; Extension of Comment Period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the
comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking that appeared in
the Federal Register of February 5, 2014, entitled ``Sanitary
Transportation of Human and Animal Food'' and its information
collection provisions. We are taking this action in response to
requests for an extension to allow interested persons additional time
to submit comments. We also are taking this action to keep the comment
period for the information collection provisions associated with the
rule consistent with the comment period for the proposed rule.

DATES: FDA is extending the comment period on the proposed rule
published February 5, 2014 (79 FR 7005), and its information collection
provisions. Submit either electronic or written comments on the
proposed rule and the information collection by July 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods,
except that comments on information collection issues under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 must be submitted to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) (see the ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995'' section of this
document).

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Written Submissions

    Submit written submissions in the following ways:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for paper submissions):
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Agency
name, Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0013, and RIN 0910-AG98 for this
rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the
``Request for Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of
Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: With regard to the proposed rule:
Michael E. Kashtock, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food
and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD
20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    With regard to the information collection: Domini Bean, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville
Rd., COLE-14526, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of February 5, 2014, we published a
proposed rule entitled ``Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal
Food'' with a 115-day comment period on the provisions of the proposed
rule and on the information collection provisions that are subject to
review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
    FDA has received requests for an extension of the comment period on
the proposed rule. The requests conveyed concern that the current 115-
day comment period does not allow time to thoroughly analyze the
proposed rule given that the regulations would apply to a diverse array
of human foods, animal feed and feed ingredients, and pet food
transported by rail and truck. The requests also stated an extended
comment period would allow interested persons an opportunity to
consider the complexities that affect the interrelated responsibilities
of shippers, carriers, and receivers. Finally, the requests stated that
additional time is needed to analyze the economic impact on the
affected industry sectors and to provide FDA with pertinent information
to assist in the economic analysis. FDA has considered the requests and
is granting a 60-day extension of the comment period to July 30, 2014,
for the ``Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food'' proposed
rule to allow interested persons additional time to submit comments. We
also are extending the comment period for the information collection
provisions to July 30, 2014, to make the comment period for the
information collection provisions the same as the comment period for
the provisions of the proposed rule. To clarify, FDA is requesting
comment on all issues raised by the proposed rule.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Interested persons may either submit electronic comments regarding
the information collection to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax
written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>. All comments should be
identified with the title ``Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal
Food.''

III. Request for Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
the proposed rule to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to
the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only
necessary to send one set of comments. Received comments may be seen in
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 20, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-12002 Filed 5-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P