[Federal Register: July 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 128)]
[Notices]
[Page 38866]
[DOCID:fr06jy10-124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee--Public
Teleconference

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
Teleconference.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a
teleconference of the Space Transportation Operations Working Group
(STOWG) of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee
(COMSTAC). The teleconference will take place on Wednesday, July 21,
2010, starting at 1:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Individuals who plan
to participate should contact Susan Lender, DFO, (the Contact Person
listed below) by phone or e-mail for the teleconference call in number.
    The proposed agenda for this teleconference will feature the action
items from the May 19, 2010 meeting held at the National Housing
Center, 1201 15th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. These include:
    1. Examine the top issues and articulate what they mean and how
STOWG wants to address them.
    2. Look at five questions from last October on the cost impact of
second stages complying voluntarily with orbital debris management.
STOWG wants to complete this action.
    3. Review the Conops report.
    Interested members of the public may submit relevant written
statements for the COMSTAC members to consider under the advisory
process. Statements may concern the issues and agenda items mentioned
above or additional issues that may be relevant for the U.S. commercial
space transportation industry. Interested parties wishing to submit
written statements should contact Susan Lender, DFO, (the Contact
Person listed below) in writing (mail or e-mail) by July 15, 2010, so
that the information can be made available to COMSTAC members for their
review and consideration before the July 21, 2010, teleconference.
Written statements should be supplied in the following formats: One
hard copy with original signature or one electronic copy via e-mail.
    An agenda will be posted on the FAA Web site at http://www.faa.gov/
go/ast.
    Individuals who plan to participate and need special assistance
should inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the
meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lender (AST-100), Office of
Commercial Space Transportation (AST), 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Room 331, Washington, DC 20591, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Complete information regarding COMSTAC is
available on the FAA Web site at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/
headquarters_offices/ast/advisory_committee/.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2010-16254 Filed 7-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 12, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2000-6796

________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Aerolineas Santo Domingo, S.A. d/b/a Air Santo Domingo
Date Filed:  January 23, 2004

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in
scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between any point or points in the Dominican Republic, on the one hand,
and Miami, Florida, New York, New York, and points in Puerto Rico, on
the other hand; and to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212 of
the Department’s rules.  The applicant would conduct these services
only by wet leasing aircraft from a duly authorized and properly
supervised U.S. or foreign air carrier.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  March 19 and November 5,
2002, in this docket.

Applicant representative:  Luis A. Irizarry<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved							Action date:  February 12, 2004

Effective dates of authority granted:  February 12, 2004-February 12,
2005

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Air Transport
Agreement between the United States and the Dominican Republic, dated
July 22, 1986

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  Air Santo
Domingo may not conduct U.S. operations with its own aircraft and crews
without further order of the Department.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

2

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

		Attachment

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI of its
plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security Administration
has determined that security is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be
served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

  We note that Air Santo Domingo sought authority for a two year period.
 However, as is our usual practice in conferring exemption authority in
the circumstances presented, we are limiting the term of authority to
one year.  Air Santo Domingo may, of course, seek renewal of this
authority in accordance with the Department’s rules.

  The Dominican Republic is currently a Category 2 country under the
FAA’s International Aviation Safety Assessment Program (IASA).

08/2003


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 76379]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26479]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4278-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Kentucky; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4278-DR), dated August 26, 2016, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 24, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lai Sun Yee, of
FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this
disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Warren J. Riley as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-26479 Filed 11-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45485-45488]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0020; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1037]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On March 25, 2009, FEMA published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule that contained an erroneous table. This notice provides
corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information
published at 74 FR 12804. The table provided here represents the
flooding sources, location of referenced elevations, effective and
modified elevations, and communities affected for Livingston County,
Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas. Specifically, it addresses the
following flooding sources: Bayou Creek (backwater effects from Ohio
River), Bayou Creek Tributary 20 (backwater effects from Ohio River),
Bissell Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River), Buck Creek
(backwater effects from Ohio River), Claylick Creek (backwater effects
from Ohio River), Cooper Creek (backwater effects from Tennessee
River), Cumberland River (backwater effects from Ohio River), Cypress
Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River), Deer Creek (backwater
effects from Ohio River), Dry Branch (backwater effects from Tennessee
River), Dry Fork (backwater effects from Ohio River), Dyer Hill Creek
(backwater effects from Ohio River), Ferguson Creek (backwater effects
from Ohio River), Givens Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River),
Guess Creek (backwater effects from Tennessee River), Guess Creek
Tributary 9 (backwater effects from Tennessee River), Hickory Creek
(backwater effects from Ohio River), Jones Creek (backwater effects
from Tennessee River), Kentucky Lake, Lake Barkley, Lee Creek
(backwater effects from Tennessee River), McCormick Creek (backwater
effects from Ohio River), McGilligan Creek (backwater effects from Ohio
River), Ohio River, Phelps Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River),
Phelps Creek Tributary 2 (backwater effects from Ohio River), Sandy
Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River), Smith Creek (backwater
effects from Ohio River), Snglin Creek (backwater effects from Ohio
River), Sugar Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River), Sugarcamp
Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River), Sugarcamp Creek Tributary 3
(backwater effects from Ohio River), the Tennessee River, and Turkey
Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before October 27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1037, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements.
They

should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are
used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.

Corrections

    In the proposed rule published at 74 FR 12804, in the March 25,
2009, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under the
authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The table entitled ``Livingston County,
Kentucky and Incorporated Areas'' addressed the flooding sources
Kentucky Lake, Lake Barkley, Ohio River, and Tennessee River. That
table contained inaccurate information as to the location of referenced
elevation, effective and modified elevation in feet, and/or communities
affected for those flooding sources. In addition, it did not include
the following flooding sources: Bayou Creek (backwater effects from
Ohio River), Bayou Creek Tributary 20 (backwater effects from Ohio
River), Bissell Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River), Buck Creek
(backwater effects from Ohio River), Claylick Creek (backwater effects
from Ohio River), Cooper Creek (backwater effects from Tennessee
River), Cumberland River (backwater effects from Ohio River), Cypress
Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River), Deer Creek (backwater
effects from Ohio River), Dry Branch (backwater effects from Tennessee
River), Dry Fork (backwater effects from Ohio River), Dyer Hill Creek
(backwater effects from Ohio River), Ferguson Creek (backwater effects
from Ohio River), Givens Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River),
Guess Creek (backwater effects from Tennessee River), Guess Creek
Tributary 9 (backwater effects from Tennessee River), Hickory Creek
(backwater effects from Ohio River), Jones Creek (backwater effects
from Tennessee River), Lee Creek (backwater effects from Tennessee
River), McCormick Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River), McGilligan
Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River), Phelps Creek (backwater
effects from Ohio River), Phelps Creek Tributary 2 (backwater effects
from Ohio River), Sandy Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River),
Smith Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River), Snglin Creek
(backwater effects from Ohio River), Sugar Creek (backwater effects
from Ohio River), Sugarcamp Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River),
Sugarcamp Creek Tributary 3 (backwater effects from Ohio River), and
Turkey Creek (backwater effects from Ohio River). In this notice, FEMA
is publishing a table containing the accurate information, to address
these prior errors. The information provided below should be used in
lieu of that previously published.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                feet  (NAVD)
                                       Location of referenced     Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)                 elevation**        ground [caret] Elevation    Communities affected
                                                                    in meters (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Livingston County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bayou Creek (backwater effects from   From the Ohio River             None         +348  Unincorporated Areas of
 Ohio River).                          confluence to                                      Livingston County.
                                       approximately 4.7
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Sugarcamp Creek
                                       confluence.
Bayou Creek Tributary 20 (backwater   From the Bayou Creek            None         +348  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Ohio River).             confluence to                                      Livingston County.
                                       approximately 1.8
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Bayou Creek confluence.
Bissell Creek (backwater effects      From the Cumberland             None         +343  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Ohio River).                     River confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 2.9
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Cumberland River
                                       confluence.
Buck Creek (backwater effects from    From the Ohio River             None         +355  Unincorporated Areas of
 Ohio River).                          confluence to                                      Livingston County.
                                       approximately 3.3
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Ohio River confluence.
Claylick Creek (backwater effects     From the Cumberland             None         +343  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Ohio River).                     River confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 5 miles
                                       upstream of the
                                       Cumberland River
                                       confluence.
Cooper Creek (backwater effects from  From the Tennessee              None         +343  Unincorporated Areas of
 Tennessee River).                     River confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 2.2
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Tennessee River
                                       confluence.
Cumberland River (backwater effects   From the Ohio River             None         +343  City of Smithland,
 from Ohio River).                     confluence to                                      Unincorporated Areas
                                       approximately 2.5                                  of Livingston County.
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Cypress Creek
                                       confluence.
Cypress Creek (backwater effects      From the Cumberland             None         +343  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Ohio River).                     River confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 3.2
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Cumberland River
                                       confluence.
Deer Creek (backwater effects from    From the Ohio River             None         +356  Unincorporated Areas of
 Ohio River).                          confluence to                                      Livingston County.
                                       approximately 1.7
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Turkey Creek
                                       confluence.
Dry Branch (backwater effects from    From the Tennessee              None         +342  Unincorporated Areas of
 Tennessee River).                     River confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 0.6 mile
                                       upstream of the
                                       Tennessee River
                                       confluence.
Dry Fork (backwater effects from      From the Sandy Creek            None         +343  Unincorporated Areas of
 Ohio River).                          confluence to                                      Livingston County.
                                       approximately 2.6
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Sandy Creek confluence.

Dyer Hill Creek (backwater effects    From approximately 3            None         +345  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Ohio River).                     miles upstream of the                              Livingston County.
                                       Ohio River confluence
                                       to approximately 4.4
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Ohio River confluence.
Ferguson Creek (backwater effects     From the Cumberland             None         +343  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Ohio River).                     River confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 2.1
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Cumberland River
                                       confluence.
Givens Creek (backwater effects from  From approximately 1            None         +352  Unincorporated Areas of
 Ohio River).                          mile upstream of the                               Livingston County.
                                       Ohio River confluence
                                       to approximately 2.6
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Ohio River confluence.
Guess Creek (backwater effects from   From the Tennessee              None         +342  Unincorporated Areas of
 Tennessee River).                     River confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 3.3
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Tennessee River
                                       confluence.
Guess Creek Tributary 9 (backwater    From the Tennessee              None         +342  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Tennessee River).        River confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 0.8 mile
                                       upstream of the
                                       Tennessee River
                                       confluence.
Hickory Creek (backwater effects      From the Cumberland             None         +343  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Ohio River).                     River confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 3.8
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Cumberland River
                                       confluence.
Jones Creek (backwater effects from   From the Cooper Creek           None         +343  Unincorporated Areas of
 Tennessee River).                     confluence to                                      Livingston County.
                                       approximately 1.8
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Cooper Creek
                                       confluence.
Kentucky Lake.......................  Entire shoreline.......         None         +375  City of Grand Rivers,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Livingston County.
Lake Barkley........................  Entire shoreline.......         None         +375  City of Grand Rivers,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Livingston County.
Lee Creek (backwater effects from     From the Tennessee              None         +342  Unincorporated Areas of
 Tennessee River).                     River confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 2 miles
                                       upstream of the
                                       Tennessee River
                                       confluence.
McCormick Creek (backwater effects    From the Cumberland             None         +343  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Ohio River).                     River confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 2 miles
                                       upstream of the
                                       Cumberland River
                                       confluence.
McGilligan Creek (backwater effects   From the Ohio River             None         +350  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Ohio River).                     confluence to                                      Livingston County.
                                       approximately 4.4
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Ohio River confluence.
Ohio River..........................  Just upstream of the            None         +340  City of Carrsville,
                                       Tennessee River                                    City of Smithland,
                                       confluence.                                        Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Livingston County.
                                      Approximately 3,500             None         +356
                                       feet upstream of the
                                       Deer Creek confluence.
Phelps Creek (backwater effects from  From the Ohio River             None         +346  Unincorporated Areas of
 Ohio River).                          confluence to                                      Livingston County.
                                       approximately 2.2
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Ohio River confluence.
Phelps Creek Tributary 2 (backwater   From the Phelps Creek           None         +346  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Ohio River).             confluence to                                      Livingston County.
                                       approximately 0.3 mile
                                       upstream of the Phelps
                                       Creek confluence.
Sandy Creek (backwater effects from   From the Cumberland             None         +343  Unincorporated Areas of
 Ohio River).                          River confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 3 miles
                                       upstream of the Dry
                                       Fork confluence.
Smith Creek (backwater effects from   From the Cumberland             None         +343  Unincorporated Areas of
 Ohio River).                          River confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 2.2
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Cumberland River
                                       confluence.
Snglin Creek (backwater effects from  From the Hickory Creek          None         +343  Unincorporated Areas of
 Ohio River).                          confluence to                                      Livingston County.
                                       approximately 1,350
                                       feet upstream of the
                                       Hickory Creek
                                       confluence.
Sugar Creek (backwater effects from   From the Cumberland             None         +343  Unincorporated Areas of
 Ohio River).                          River confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 5.7
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Cumberland River
                                       confluence.
Sugarcamp Creek (backwater effects    From the Bayou Creek            None         +348  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Ohio River).                     confluence to                                      Livingston County.
                                       approximately 3 miles
                                       upstream of the Bayou
                                       Creek confluence.
Sugarcamp Creek Tributary 3           From the Sugarcamp              None         +348  Unincorporated Areas of
 (backwater effects from Ohio River).  Creek confluence to                                Livingston County.
                                       approximately 1.4
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       Sugarcamp Creek
                                       confluence.
Tennessee River.....................  Approximately 5,100             None         +341  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       feet downstream of the                             Livingston County.
                                       Hodges Creek
                                       confluence.

                                      At the downstream side          None         +343
                                       of the Kentucky Dam.
Turkey Creek (backwater effects from  From the Deer Creek             None         +356  Unincorporated Areas of
 Ohio River).                          confluence to                                      Livingston County.
                                       approximately 0.8 mile
                                       upstream of the Deer
                                       Creek confluence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Carrsville
Maps are available for inspection at the Livingston County Courthouse, 339 Courthouse Drive, Smithland, KY
 42081.

City of Grand Rivers
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 122 West Cumberland Avenue, Grand Rivers, KY 42045.

City of Smithland
Maps are available for inspection at the City Hall, 310 Wilson Avenue, Smithland, KY 42081.

                                    Unincorporated Areas of Livingston County
Maps are available for inspection at the Livingston County Courthouse, 339 Courthouse Drive, Smithland, KY
 42081.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: July 15, 2011.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-19241 Filed 7-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 226)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 71550-71556]
[DOCID:fr24no10-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130; FRL-8851-8]

N,N,N',N'',-Tetrakis-(2-Hydroxypropyl) Ethylenediamine (NTHE);
Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of N,N,N',N'',-Tetrakis-(2-Hydroxypropyl)
Ethylenediamine (NTHE; CAS no. 102-60-3) when used as an inert
ingredient stabilizer for formulation for pre- and post-harvest uses
under 40 CFR 180.910 and application to animals under 40 CFR 180.930,
at a maximum concentration of 20% by weight in pesticide formulations.
The Joint Inerts Task Force (JITF), Cluster Support Team Number 15 (CST
15) EPA Company No. 84947 submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to

establish a maximum permissible level for residues of NTHE.

DATES: This regulation is effective November 24, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before January 24, 2011,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. 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. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the harmonized test guidelines
referenced in this document electronically, please go to http://
www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
January 24, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0130, 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 Facility'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 Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of March 24, 2010 (75 FR 14156) (FRL-8815-
6), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
0E7683) by The Joint Inerts Task Force (JITF), Cluster Support
Team Number 15 (CST 15) EPA Company No. 84947, c/o CropLife America,
1156 15th St., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005. The petition requested
that 40 CFR 180.910 and 40 CFR 180.930 be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of NTHE
(102-60-3) when used as an inert ingredient stabilizer for formulation
in pesticide formulations applied to pre- and post-harvest uses and
application to animals at a maximum concentration of 20% by weight in
pesticide formulations. That notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by the Joint Inerts Task Force (JITF), Cluster
Support Team Number 15 (CST 15) EPA Company No. 84947, the petitioner,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. The
Agency received one comment in response to the notice of filing. The
comment was received from a private citizen who opposed the
authorization to sell any pesticide that leaves a residue on food. The
Agency understands the commenter's concerns and recognizes that some
individuals believe that no residue of pesticides should be allowed.
However, under the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) EPA is authorized to
establish pesticide tolerances or exemptions where persons seeking such
tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the
safety standard imposed by the statute.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty

acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

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

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by NTHE as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
    The existing toxicology database for NTHE consists of one OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 (combined repeated dose toxicity study
with the reproduction/developmental screening study in rats), a 90-day
toxicity study in rats, and several studies in the scientific
literature on acute oral toxicity and mutagenicity.
    The available toxicity data indicates that NTHE has low acute oral
toxicity. NTHE was not mutagenic in an Ames test. In the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 rat reproductive/developmental toxicity
screening study, there was no evidence of increased susceptibility.
Parental toxicity manifested as microscopic brain lesions at 1000 mg/
kg/day (the highest dose tested). No developmental or reproductive
effects were observed at doses of 100, 300, and 1000 mg/kg/day. There
is no evidence of increased susceptibility to the offspring of rats
following prenatal and post-natal exposure in the OPPTS Harmonized
Guideline 870.3650 study. There were no offspring effects at any dose
level up to the limit dose (1000 mg/kg/day).
    In addition, in a 90-day dietary study in rats (1956), where the
NOAEL was set at 600-900 mg/kg/day (1% in diet), based on body-weight
gain effects at 3% and 5% in the diet and a slightly greater incidence
of borderline abnormalities of the liver of questionable significance,
there are no other repeat dose toxicity data available. The NOAEL from
the OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study (300 mg/kg/day) is
protective of any potential liver toxicity.
    However, there is suggestive evidence of adverse neurotoxic effects
in the adult animal in the OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study at
the limit dose of 1000 mg/kg/day. These effects manifested as different
sized vacuoles in the choroid plexus epithelial cells (some were
signet-ring shaped) of the lateral ventricles of the brain in all high-
dose parental male and female rats. None of the low- or mid-dose or
control animals showed a similar change.
    Pharmacokinetics in rats indicates that, following oral dosing,
NTHE is poorly absorbed and rapidly excreted in the urine, mainly
unchanged (92%-96%). None of the hypothetical metabolites, such as
keto- or N-dealkylated derivatives, were observed. The calculated
bioavailability factor (F = 0.018) revealed that less than 2% of the
orally administered dose of NTHE is absorbed through the stomach and
intestine. The half-life for elimination is 82 minutes (in non-diabetic
rats) as a first order process.
    There are no chronic toxicity studies available for NTHE. The
Agency used a qualitative structure activity relationship (SAR)
database, DEREK 11, to determine if there were structural alerts
suggestive of carcinogenicity. No structural alerts were identified. In
addition, there was little concern about any of the postulated
metabolites having greater toxicity than the parent compounds.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by NTHE, as well as, the NOAEL and the lowest-
observed adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``N,N,N',N'',-Tetrakis-
(2-Hydroxypropyl) Ethylenediamine (NTHE--JITF CST 15 Inert Ingredient).
Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Proposed Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an Inert Ingredient in
Pesticide Formulations'' at pp. 7-11 and 31-34 in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2009-0130.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful

analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose
at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL).
Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to
calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a population-
adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of
exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any
amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency
estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the
adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for NTHE used for human
risk assessment is discussed in Unit IV.B. of the final rule published
in the Federal Register of July 29, 2009 (74 FR 37568) (FRL-8429-3).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to NTHE, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures
from NTHE in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. No adverse effects attributable to a single
exposure of NTHE was seen in the toxicity databases; therefore, an
acute exposure assessment for NTHE is not necessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide
Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue
levels in food, no residue data were submitted for NTHE. In the absence
of specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach which uses
surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure estimates for the
subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure estimates are based on
the highest tolerance for a given commodity from a list of high-use
insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. A complete description of the
general approach taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence
of residue data is contained in the memorandum entitled ``Alkyl Amines
Polyalkoxylates (Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and
Drinking Water) Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts''
(D361707, S. Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.
    In the dietary exposure assessment, the Agency assumed that the
residue level of the inert ingredient would be no higher than the
highest tolerance for a given commodity. Implicit in this assumption is
that there would be similar rates of degradation (if any) between the
active and inert ingredient and that the concentration of inert
ingredient in the scenarios leading to these highest of tolerances
would be no higher than the concentration of the active ingredient.
    The Agency believes the assumptions used to estimate dietary
exposures lead to an extremely conservative assessment of dietary risk
due to a series of compounded conservatisms. First, assuming that the
level of residue for an inert ingredient is equal to the level of
residue for the active ingredient will overstate exposure. The
concentrations of active ingredient in agricultural products are
generally at least 50% of the product and often can be much higher.
Further, pesticide products rarely have a single inert ingredient;
rather there is generally a combination of different inert ingredients
used which additionally reduces the concentration of any single inert
ingredient in the pesticide product in relation to that of the active
ingredient. In the case of NTHE, EPA made a specific adjustment to the
dietary exposure assessment to account for the use limitations of the
amount of NTHE that may be in formulations (no more than 20% by weight
in pesticide formulations) and assumed that NTHE is present at the
maximum limitation rather than at equal quantities with the active
ingredient. This remains a very conservative assumption because
surfactants are generally used at levels far below this percentage.
    Second, the conservatism of this methodology is compounded by EPA's
decision to assume that, for each commodity, the active ingredient
which will serve as a guide to the potential level of inert ingredient
residues is the active ingredient with the highest tolerance level.
This assumption overstates residue values because it would be highly
unlikely, given the high number of inert ingredients, that a single
inert ingredient or class of ingredients would be present at the level
of the active ingredient in the highest tolerance for every commodity.
Finally, a third compounding conservatism is EPA's assumption that all
foods contain the inert ingredient at the highest tolerance level. In
other words, EPA assumed 100% of all foods are treated with the inert
ingredient at the rate and manner necessary to produce the highest
residue legally possible for an active ingredient. In summary, EPA
chose a very conservative method for estimating what level of inert
residue could be on food, then used this methodology to choose the
highest possible residue that could be found on food and assumed that
all food contained this residue. No consideration was given to
potential degradation between harvest and consumption even though
monitoring data shows that tolerance level residues are typically one
to two orders of magnitude higher than actual residues in food when
distributed in commerce.
    Accordingly, although sufficient information to quantify actual
residue levels in food is not available, the compounding of these
conservative assumptions will lead to a significant exaggeration of
actual exposures. EPA does not believe that this approach
underestimates exposure in the absence of residue data.
    iii. Cancer. The Agency used a qualitative SAR database, DEREK11,
to determine if there were structural alerts suggestive of
carcinogenicity. No structural alerts for carcinogenicity were
identified. NTHE is not expected to be carcinogenic. Therefore a cancer
dietary exposure assessment is not necessary to assess cancer risk.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for NTHE. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT
were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the
screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for NTHE, a conservative
drinking water concentration value of 100 ppb based on screening level
modeling was used to assess the contribution to drinking water for the
chronic dietary risk assessments for parent compound. These values were
directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
    A screening level residential exposure and risk assessment was
completed for

products containing NTHE as an inert ingredient. In this assessment,
representative scenarios, based on end-use product application methods
and labeled application rates, were selected. The Agency did not
identify any products intended for use on pets or home cleaning
products that contain NTHE. For each of the use scenarios, the Agency
assessed residential handler (applicator) inhalation exposure for
outdoor scenarios with high exposure potential (i.e., exposure
scenarios with high end unit exposure values) to serve as a screening
assessment for all potential residential pesticides containing.
Similarly, residential post application oral exposure assessments were
also performed utilizing high end outdoor exposure scenarios. Further
details of this residential exposure and risk analysis can be found at
http://www.regulations.gov in the memorandum entitled ``JITF Inert
Ingredients. Residential and Occupational Exposure Assessment
Algorithms and Assumptions Appendix for the Human Health Risk
Assessments to Support Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a
Tolerance When Used as Inert Ingredients in Pesticide Formulations''
(D364751, 5/7/09, Lloyd/LaMay) in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-
0710.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found NTHE to share a common mechanism of toxicity with
any other substances, and NTHE does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that NTHE does not have a
common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The existing toxicology
database for NTHE consists of one OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650
combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/
developmental screening study in rats, and several studies in the
scientific literature on acute oral toxicity and mutagenicity.
    In the case of NTHE, there was no increased susceptibility to the
offspring of rats following pre- and post-natal (PND 0-4) exposure in
the OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study (gavage dosing of males
for 28 days, females for 46 days). There were no offspring effects at
any dose level up to the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg/day) where maternal/
paternal toxicity was manifested as microscopic lesions in the brain at
1,000 mg/kg/day. Although the parental NOAEL selected as the point of
departure for the chronic dietary, incidental oral, and inhalation risk
assessments is protective of the adult animal, the particular findings
in the parental animals lead to uncertainties for the offspring. There
is a concern for neurodevelopment since this is not addressed in the
OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 screening study.
    3. Conclusion. Despite the fact that no quantitative or qualitative
increased susceptibility to offspring was seen in the OPPTS Harmonized
Guideline 870.3650 combined repeated dose toxicity study and the
conservative exposure assessment, EPA has determined that the FQPA SF
cannot be reduced because of the neurotoxic effects seen in the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 reproductive/developmental study and the
absence of standard neurotoxicity and developmental studies. EPA
considered the following factors in determining that a 10X FQPA SF
should be retained:

    In the OPPTS Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 study in rats there
is some evidence of neurotoxicity in the adult animals in the OPPTS
Harmonized Guideline 870.3650 reproductive/developmental study,
which occurred only at the highest dose tested of 1,000 mg/kg/day.
The vacuoles in the choroid plexus epithelial cells of the lateral
ventricles of the brain were of different size, and some of the
epithelial cells were signet-ring shaped. None of the other dose
groups (100 and 300 mg/kg/day) showed a similar change. These
results indicate a potential concern for effects on neurodevelopment
at high doses following repeat exposure. Given that neither
neurotoxicity nor standard developmental toxicity studies are
available on NTHE, retention of the FQPA Safety Factor is
appropriate.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Determination of safety section. EPA determines whether acute and
chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate
exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of
acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-,
intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the
estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the
appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
NTHE is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
NTHE from food and water will utilize 84% of the cPAD for children 1-2
years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Based
on the explanation in this unit, regarding residential use patterns,
chronic residential exposure to residues of NTHE is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    NTHE is currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products
that are registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to NTHE.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 4,800 and 5,000
for adult males and females, respectively. Adult

residential exposure includes high-end inhalation handler exposure from
outdoor uses. EPA has concluded the combined short-term aggregated
food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of
1,100 for children. Children's residential exposure includes incidental
oral exposure from treated turf. Because EPA's level of concern for
NTHE is a MOE of 1,000 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    NTHE is currently used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products
that are registered for uses that could result in intermediate-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
intermediate-term residential exposures to NTHE.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs of 4,800 and 5,100, for adult males and females,
respectively. EPA has concluded the combined intermediate-term
aggregated food, water, and residential exposures result in an
aggregate MOE of 1,200 for children. Children's residential exposure
includes incidental oral exposure from treated turf. Because EPA's
level of concern for NTHE is a MOE of 1,000 or below, these MOEs are
not of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has not
identified any concerns for carcinogenicity relating to NTHE.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to NTHE residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of NTHE that may be
used in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw
agricultural commodities. That limitation will be enforced through the
pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (``FIFRA''), 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. EPA
will not register any such pesticide for sale or distribution that
contains greater than 20% of NTHE by weight in the pesticide
formulation.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards
program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for NTHE.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.910 and 40 CFR 180.930 for NTHE (102-60-3)
when used as an inert ingredient (stabilizer for formulation) in
pesticide formulations applied to pre- and post-harvest uses and
application to animals at a maximum concentration of 20% by weight in
pesticide formulations.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: November 16, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.910, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following inert ingredients to read as follows:

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

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Inert ingredients                Limits                Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
N,N,N',N'',-tetrakis-(2-        Concentration in        Stabilizer for
 hydroxypropyl)                  formulated end-use      formulation.
 ethylenediamine (102-60-3).     products not to
                                 exceed 20% by weight
                                 in pesticide
                                 formulations.

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

0
3. In Sec.  180.930, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following inert ingredients to read as follows:

Sec.  180.930  Inert ingredients applied to animals; exemptions from
the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Inert ingredients                Limits                Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
N,N,N',N'',-tetrakis-(2-        Concentration in        Stabilizer for
 hydroxypropyl)                  formulated end-use      formulation.
 ethylenediamine (102-60-3).     products not to
                                 exceed 20% by weight
                                 in pesticide
                                 formulations.

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

[FR Doc. 2010-29647 Filed 11-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39691-39694]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16700]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0246]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone--Oil Exploration Staging Area in Dutch Harbor, AK

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones in the
Port of Dutch Harbor, Broad Bay or adjacent navigable waters in the
Dutch Harbor area on June 15, 2015. The temporary safety zones will
encompass the navigable waters within a 25-yard radius of moored or
anchored offshore exploration or support vessels, and the navigable
waters within a 100-yard radius of underway offshore exploration or
support vessels. The purpose of the safety zones is to protect persons
and vessels during an unusually high volume of vessel traffic in the
Port of Dutch Harbor, and the adjacent territorial sea due to
additional vessel traffic associated with exploratory drilling
operations in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas during the summer of 2015.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from July 10, 2015
until July 15, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be used from June 15, 2015, until July 10, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2015-0246]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email LT Eugene Chung, Sector Anchorage
Prevention, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On May 1, 2015, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled Safety Zones: Oil Exploration Staging Area in Dutch Harbor, AK
in the Federal Register (80 FR 24866). We received one comment on the
proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Based on the expectation of increased maritime traffic primarily
due to the anticipated arrival of approximately twenty eight (28)
vessels affiliated with planned offshore drilling operations in the
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, temporary safety zones needed to ensure the
safe transit of vessels within the navigable waters of the Port of
Dutch Harbor and adjacent waters extending seaward to the limits of the
territorial sea. The Coast Guard believes temporary safety zones are
needed due to safety concerns for personnel aboard the support vessels,
mariners operating

other vessels in the vicinity of Dutch Harbor, and to protect the
environment. The vessels and equipment anticipated to be staged within
these safety zones, due to their size and technical complexity, pose a
safety risk to vessels that attempt to navigate too closely to them.
Limited rescue capabilities are available in the area. In an effort to
mitigate the safety risks and any resulting environmental damage, the
Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones within the Port of
Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea.
    In evaluating this request, the Coast Guard explored relevant
safety factors and considered several criteria, including, but not
limited to: (1) The amount of commercial activity in and around the
Port of Dutch Harbor; (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard the
vessels; (3) sensitivity of the environment in the region and potential
adverse affects caused by a grounding, allision, or collision; (4) the
types and volume of vessels navigating in the vicinity of the Port of
Dutch Harbor; and (5) the need to allow for lawful demonstrations
without endangering the safe operations of support vessels. Vessels
transiting in the vicinity of the safety zones could consist of large
commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, tugs and tows, and
recreational vessels. Any group or individual intending to conduct
lawful demonstrations in the vicinity of offshore exploration support
vessels must do so outside of the temporary safety zones.
    Results from a thorough and comprehensive examination of the five
criteria identified above, in conjunction with International Maritime
Organization guidelines and existing regulations, warrant establishment
of the temporary safety zones. A safety zone would significantly reduce
the threat of collisions, allisions, or other incidents which could
endanger the safety of all vessels operating on the navigable waters of
the Port of Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea.

C. Discussion of the Temporary Final Rule

    For the reasons described above, the Coast Guard is establishing
temporary safety zones that would surround the designated vessels while
at anchor, moored or underway on the navigable waters of the Port of
Dutch Harbor and the adjacent territorial sea in order to mitigate the
potential safety risks associated with the increased vessel traffic.
The temporary safety zones will encompass the waters within 25 yards of
the support vessel if the support vessel is moored or at anchor, and
100 yards if the support vessel is in transit.
    The Coast Guard received one comment on the NPRM. The commenter
suggested that the end date, originally proposed as July 1, 2015, be
extended to July 15, 2015. The commenter noted that several of the
assets that will be staged in Dutch Harbor are not scheduled to depart
until early July, 2015. Based on this suggestion, the Coast Guard is
adjusting the end date until July 15, 2015.
    Enforcing temporary safety zones for each offshore exploration or
support vessel while they are on the navigable waters in the Port of
Dutch Harbor or the adjacent territorial sea will help ensure the
safety of all vessels, including the diverse commercial fleets of Dutch
Harbor.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this temporary final rule after considering numerous
statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize
our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The safety zone will
have negligible economic impact, as there will be ample room for
navigation around it.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the minimal
impact this will have on standard vessel operations within the port of
Dutch Harbor because of the limited area affected and the limited
duration of the rule. The safety zones are also designed to allow
vessels transiting through the area to safely travel around the safety
zones without incurring additional costs.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), (5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    This rule could affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit through or anchor in within a portion of the Port of Dutch
Harbor or adjacent waters, from June 15, 2015 to July 15, 2015.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: These
safety zone restrictions are only effective from June 15, 2015 to July
15, 2015, and are limited only to waters within 25 yards of the support
vessel if the support vessel is moored or at anchor, and 100 yards if
the support vessel is in transit. The Coast Guard will publish a local
notice to mariners (LNM) and will issue broadcast notice to mariners
(BNM) alerts via marine channel 16 VHF before the safety zone is
enforced.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that
Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for
federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the ``For Further
Information Contact'' section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Specifically, the rule involves
establishing a safety zone, which is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this temporary
final rule. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated
under Supporting Documents.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T17-0246 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T17-0246  Safety Zone; Port of Dutch Harbor; Dutch Harbor,
Alaska

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones:
    (1) All navigable waters within a 25-yard radius of a moored or
anchored offshore exploration or support vessel, or within a 100-yard
radius of any underway offshore exploration or support vessel, located
within the Port of Dutch Harbor, Broad Bay or adjacent navigable waters
encompassed within the area from Cape Cheerful at 54-12.000 N 166-
38.000 W north to the limits of the U.S. territorial sea, and from
Princess Head at 53-59.000 N 166-25.900 W to the limits of the U.S.
territorial sea.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) Effective date. The temporary safety zones become effective at
12:01 a.m., June 15, 2015, and terminate on 11:59 p.m., July 15, 2015,
unless sooner terminated by the Captain of the Port.
    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones
contained in Sec.  165.23 apply to all vessels operating within the
area described in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (1) If a non-exploration or support vessel is moored or anchored
and an offshore exploration or support vessel transits near them such
that it places the moored or anchored vessel within the 100-yard safety
zone described in paragraph (a) of this section, the moored or anchored
vessel must remain stationary until the offshore exploration or support
vessel maneuvers to a distance exceeding the 100-yard safety zone.
    (2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port (COTP) or designated on-scene representative,
consisting of commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast
Guard. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio,
flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed
as directed by the COTP's designated on-scene representative.
    (3) Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the COTP or his designated on-scene representative. Any persons
desiring to enter the safety zone must contact the designated on-scene
representative on VHF channel 16 (156.800 MHz) and receive permission
prior to entering.
    (4) If permission is granted to transit within the safety zone, all
persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the designated
on-scene representative.
    (5) The COTP, Western Alaska, will notify the maritime and general
public by marine information broadcast during the period of time that
the safety zones are in force by providing notice in accordance with 33
CFR Sec.  165.7.

    (d) Penalties. Persons and vessels violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: June 3, 2015.
S.D. Montoya,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port, Western
Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2015-16700 Filed 7-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P