Comment Info: =================

General Comment:A 75 day period time to review the proposed regulations is insufficient. We are requesting the the review period be extended to 180 days.

Thank you


[Federal Register: February 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 29)]
[Notices]
[Page 6721]
[DOCID:fr13fe07-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-80-000]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, L.P.; Notice of Application for
Abandonment

February 6, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 2, 2007, Gulf South Pipeline Company,
LP (Gulf South), filed in the captioned docket pursuant to Section 7(b)
of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, and the Commission's Rules
and Regulations, an abbreviated application for an order authorizing it
to abandon by sale a 4.8 mile portion of the Latex-Ft. Worth line
(designated as Index 1) in Gregg County, Texas, to Buffco Production,
Inc., a producer.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time February 23, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-2381 Filed 2-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 25, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52260-52263]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0682; Product Identifier 2020-NM-090-AD; Amendment
39-21202; AD 2020-16-18]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A310 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports
of cracking found at certain fuselage frames. This AD requires
repetitive inspections for discrepancies of certain locations in and
around the fuselage and applicable corrective actions, as specified in
a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is
incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 9, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 9,
2020.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by October 9, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact
the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49
221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this IBR material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on

the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0682.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0682; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0112R1, dated May 27, 2020
(``EASA AD 2020-0112R1'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus SAS Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -
322, -324, and -325 airplanes.
    This AD was a prompted by reports of cracking found at certain
fuselage frames. The FAA is issuing this AD to address crack initiation
and propagation, which could result in reduced structural integrity of
the fuselage. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0112R1 describes procedures for repetitive rototest
and high frequency eddy current inspections for discrepancies of the
fuselage internal structure from frame (FR) 2 to FR 4, windshield frame
lower section and closing panel; repetitive low frequency eddy current
inspections for discrepancies of the stringer couplings in
circumferential junction areas at FR40/41, from stringer 13 to the
crown center line internal surface; and applicable corrective actions
(repair of discrepancies). This material is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD
2020-0112R1 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-
0112R1 is incorporated by reference in this final rule. This AD,
therefore, requires compliance with EASA AD EASA AD 2020-0112R1 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using
common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section
in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that
section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to ``all required
actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD requirement is
not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance
Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified in EASA AD EASA
AD 2020-0112R1 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-0112R1
is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0682.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    There are currently no domestic operators of these products.
Therefore, the FAA finds that notice and opportunity for prior public
comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this
amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and the FAA did not precede it by notice and opportunity for
public comment. The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data,
views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0682;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-090-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this AD based on those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments the FAA receives, without change,
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact the FAA receives about this AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this final rule, request for
comments, contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this final rule, request for
comments, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this final rule, request for comments. Submissions containing
CBI should be sent to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Any commentary that the FAA receives

which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good
cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and
comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt
this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an
affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future, the FAA provides the following cost estimates to comply with
this AD:

                  Estimated Costs for Required Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
90 work-hours x $85 per hour = $7,650.              $0           $7,650
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable providing
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2020-16-18 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21202; Docket No. FAA-2020-0682;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-090-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective September 9, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A310-203, -204, -221, -
222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking found at certain
fuselage frames. The FAA is issuing this AD to address crack
initiation and propagation, which could result in reduced structural
integrity of the fuselage.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0112R1, dated May 27, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0112R1'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0112R1

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0112R1 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0112R1 does not
apply to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2020-0112R1 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or

changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of
an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0112R1,
dated May 27, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For information about EASA AD 2020-0112R1, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0682.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 30, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-18539 Filed 8-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29763-29764]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12553]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0327]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for
the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by June
22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-New and
title ``Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on
Agency Service Delivery.'' Also include the FDA docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency
Service Delivery--(OMB Control Number 0910--NEW)

    The proposed information collection activity provides a means to
garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient,
timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's commitment to
improving service delivery.
    By qualitative feedback, we mean information that provides useful
insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys
that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the
population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer
or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and expectations, provide an
early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where
communication, training, or changes in operations might improve
delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for
ongoing, collaborative, and actionable communications between the
Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback
to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
    The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness,
appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of
service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery.
Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or
maintain the quality of service offered to the public. If this
information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and
stakeholders on the Agency's services will be unavailable.
    The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this
generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
     The collections are voluntary;
     The collections are low burden for respondents (based on
considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or
burden hours per respondent) and are low cost for both the respondents
and the Federal Government;
     The collections are noncontroversial and do not raise
issues of concern to other Federal Agencies;
     Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions
from respondents who have experience with the program or may have
experience with the program in the near future;
     Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected
only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
     Information gathered is intended to be used only
internally for general service improvement and program management
purposes and is not intended for release outside of the Agency (if
released, the Agency must indicate the qualitative nature of the
information);
     Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of
substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
     Information gathered will yield qualitative information;
the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically
reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the
population of study.
    Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful
information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative
information will not be used for quantitative information collections
that are designed to yield reliably

actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting
program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that
address: The target population to which generalizations will be made,
the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and
clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that
justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods
for assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data
collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken
prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the
results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for
submission for other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield
quantitative results.
    As a general matter, information collections will not result in any
new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask
questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes,
religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
private.
    Current Actions: New collection of information.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Affected Public: Individuals and households, businesses and
organizations, State, local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: Following is a preliminary
estimate of the aggregate burden hours for this generic clearance. This
estimate based on a review of past behavior of the participating
Agencies and by several individual Agencies' estimates for this
information collection request. In recognition that individual Agencies
will differ in how often they use this generic clearance, this burden
estimate assumes that 10 Agencies would be the heaviest users and
account for approximately 10 times as great a burden as the other
Agencies combined. Agencies will provide more refined individual
estimates of burden in their subsequent notices.
    Average Expected Annual Number of Activities: 25,000.
    Average Number of Respondents per Activity: 200.
    Annual Responses: 5,000,000.
    Frequency of Response: Once per request.
    Average Minutes per Response: 30.
    Burden Hours: 2,500,000.
    Request for Comments: Comments submitted in response to this
document will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB
approval. Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the
collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and (5) estimates of capital or startup costs
and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to
provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose
or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and
utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; to train
personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to
search data sources, to complete and review the collection of
information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
    In the Federal Register of December 22, 2010 (75 FR 80542), OMB
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. All written comments will be available for
public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annual                                         Total expected      Average
                  44 U.S.C. 3501                       Number of      frequency per     Total annual      Hours per      annual number     minutes per
                                                      respondents        response        responses         response      of activities       response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               200                1        5,000,000        2,500,000           25,000               30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Dated: May 12, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-12553 Filed 5-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  >

<EPA Registration Division contact: [insert name and telephone number
with area code]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.>

<TEMPLATE:>

<[Bayer CropScience]>

<[Insert petition number]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
[Bayer CropScience], [P. O. Box 12014, 2 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180.by establishing a tolerance for residues of
[tebupirimphos; [O-[2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-5-pyrimidinyl] O-ethyl
O-(1-methylethyl) phosphorothioate], in or on the raw agricultural
commodity [Corn, field, forage] at [0.01] parts per million (ppm),
[Corn, field, stover] at [0.01] parts per million (ppm), [Corn, pop,
forage] at [0.01] parts per million (ppm),  [Corn, pop, stover] at
[0.01] parts per million (ppm),  [Corn, sweet, forage] at [0.01] parts
per million (ppm),  [Corn, sweet, stover] at [0.01] parts per million
(ppm),  [Corn, field, grain] at [0.01] parts per million (ppm),  [Corn,
pop, grain] at [0.01] parts per million (ppm) and [Corn, sweet, kernel
plus cob with husks removed] at [0.01] parts per million (ppm). EPA has
determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the
elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may
be needed before EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism. [No residues (<0.01 ppm) in corn commodities have
been detected in the corn metabolism studies, even at exaggerated rates
of application.]>

<	2. Analytical method. [Adequate validated analytical methodology is
available for enforcement purposes.]>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. [Magnitude of the residue studies support
establishing the requested tolerances. No residues (<0.01 ppm) in corn
commodities have been detected in crop field trials or processing
studies even at exaggerated rates of application. The results of the OP
Market Basket Survey specific to tebupirimphos showed that no residues
(LOQ of 0.001 ppm) were detected in any of the four hundred fifty-two
(452) samples analyzed.]>

<B. Toxicological Profile>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  [Tebupirimphos is an organophosphate inhibitor of
cholinesterase which is the most sensitive endpoint identified for risk
assessment. Based on acceptable acute oral, dermal and inhalation
studies, tebupirimphos is considered Toxicity Category 1 by all three
routes of exposure, although the granular formulated products of Aztec
(formulation of tebupirimphos and cyfluthrin) are less toxic. An NOAEL
was not achieved in the acute neurotoxicity study in the rat but based
on plasma and red blood cell cholinesterase inhibition the LOAEL was
0.5mg/kg.]>

<	2. Genotoxicty. [Several genotoxicity tests were conducted to test for
point-mutagenic activity, chromosome aberration in vitro and in vivo,
and for DNA repair.  All tests conducted were negative, indicating no
evidence of mutagenic or genotoxic potential.]>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [In a two-generation
reproduction study in rats the developmental NOAEL was approximately
0.25 mg/kg. A decrease in fertility indices and an increase in number of
dead pups were observed at the LOAEL. There were no teratogenic effects
observed under conditions of the study. The maternal NOAEL for
cholinesterase and systemic effects was approximately 0.25 mg/kg. In a
rat developmental study no developmental effects were observed under
conditions of the study. The maternal NOAEL was 0.50 mg/kg based
cholinesterase and systemic effects at the LOAEL. In a rabbit
developmental study the NOAEL was 0.1 mg/kg for developmental effects
based on cholinesterase inhibition, a decreased number of live
fetuses/litter, a higher number of resorptions per group, and a greater
number of litters with at least one resorption at the LOAEL. The FQPA
Safety Factor was reduced to 1X based on a complete database and no
indication of increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to
tebupirimphos.]>

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. [A subchronic toxicity feeding study with rats
over 86 days demonstrated a cholinesterase NOAEL of 0.3 mg/kg/day for
males and 0.4 mg/kg/day for females. In a subchronic toxicity feeding
study with dogs over 13 weeks the cholinesterase NOAEL was approximately
0.018 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was approximately 0.15 mg/kg/day based on
plasma, erythrocyte and brain cholinesterase inhibition.]>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. [Three studies fulfill the rat
chronic/oncogenicity study requirement. Two multiple dose studies were
conducted:  a 2-year rat-feeding carcinogenicity study with a NOAEL of
0.05 mg/kg/day for cholinesterase inhibition and a 6-month
cholinesterase study in rats with a NOAEL 0.02 mg/kg/day for erythrocyte
cholinesterase inhibition.  Systemic NOAELs were higher than the NOAELs
for cholinesterase inhibition. Tebupirimphos was negative for
carcinogenic effects.  A 12-month sacrifice study in rats was conducted
at 0 and 1.25 mg/kg/day in which a decrease in body weight gain, an
increase in food consumption, and an inhibition of brain cholinesterase
activity were observed. Two studies fulfill the mouse
chronic/oncogenicity requirement.  A 2-year mouse carcinogenicity study
was negative for carcinogenic effects under the conditions of the study.
The cholinesterase NOAEL was 0.52 mg/kg/day for males and 0.58 mg/kg/day
for females for erythrocyte, plasma and brain.  In a 12-month mouse
cholinesterase study the NOAEL for cholinesterase inhibition was 0.13
mg/kg/day in males and less than 0.16 mg/kg/day in females. The NOAELs
for systemic effects were higher.  In a 1-year dog-feeding study the
NOAEL was 0.02 mg/kg/day based on plasma, red blood cell, and brain
cholinesterase inhibition effects. No systemic effects were observed
under the conditions of the study.]>

<	6. Animal metabolism. [A rat metabolism study demonstrated that
tebupirimphos was readily absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and
excreted and that bioaccumulation and retention of the compound and/or
its metabolites are low in rats. In vivo and in vitro metabolism studies
indicate that the insecticide is metabolized by mixed function oxidases
to O-[2-(1,1- dimethylethyl)-5-pyrimidinyl]
O-ethyl-O-(1-methylethyl)phosphorothioate (OMAT), an oxygen analog,
which is rapidly hydrolyzed to 2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-5-hydroxypyrimidine
(TPHP) and excreted as the glucuronide conjugate of TBHP, a major
metabolite representing 60 to 74 percent of the administered
radioactivity.]>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. [In crops the compound of concern is parent
tebupirimphos. Regulation of residues in animal commodities is not
required as there is reasonable expectation of no residues in these
commodities. Metabolite toxicity information is, therefore not
required.]>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. [There is no evidence to suggest that
tebupirimphos has any primary endocrine disruptive potential.]>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. [The FQPA Safety Factor for tebupirimphos has
been reduced to 1X based on a complete database and no indication of
increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to the compound. For the
acute dietary analysis, the acute reference dose (aRfD) of 0.002
mg/kg/day was derived from the LOAEL of 0.5 mg/kg for plasma and red
blood cell cholinesterase inhibition in the acute neurotoxicity study in
rats. An uncertainty factor of 300X has been applied to account for
inter- and intraspecies variation (100X) and lack of NOAEL (3X). Since
the FQPA Safety Factor has been reduced to 1X, the aRfD is identical to
the cute population adjusted dose (aPAD). For the chronic dietary
analysis, the chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.0002 mg/kg/day was
derived from a NOAEL of 0.02 mg/kg/day based on plasma red blood cell
and brain cholinesterase inhibition in the 2-year dog feeding study. An
uncertainty factor of 100X has been applied to account for inter- and
intraspecies variation. Since the FQPA Safety Factor has been reduced to
1X, the cRfD is identical to the chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD).]>

<	i. Food. [A Tier 1, or upper-end,  estimate of acute dietary exposure
was determined using all residues at tolerance level and 100 percent of
the commodities assumed to be treated with tebupirimphos. The analysis
was conducted using DEEMTM Software using consumption data  from the
USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) from 1989
– 1992. The chronic analysis was also a Tier 1 assessment
incorporating the same assumptions.  Acute exposure at the 95th
percentile for the most exposed subpopulation, Children 1-6 years,
equated to 4.79% of the aPAD.  The exposure to the U.S. population
equated to 2.33% of the aPAD. Chronic exposure at the 95th percentile
for the most exposed subpopulation, Children 1-6 years, equated to 17.6%
of the cPAD.  The chronic exposure to the U.S. population equated to
7.4% of the cPAD. These Tier 1 estimates of dietary are well below
EPA’s level of concern for the overall U.S. population as well as the
various population subgroups.]>

<	ii. Drinking water. [A Tier 1 drinking water assessment for
tebupirimphos has been conducted based on The Generic Expected
Environmental Concentration Program (GenEEC) to  calculate the surface
water estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) and on the
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) model to calculate
corresponding ground water EDWCs. Drinking water levels of comparison
(DWLOC) were calculated for acute exposure of tebupirimphos in surface
and ground water for the U.S. general population (68.335 ppb) and
children ages 1-6 (19.04 ppb). For chronic exposure the DWLOC for the
U.S. general population was 6.475 ppb and for children ages 1-6, 1.65
ppb. EDWCs for surface and ground water for acute exposure (estimated
maximum concentrations) are 1.89 ppb and 0.3 ppb, respectively. EDWCs
for surface and ground water for chronic exposure (estimated average
concentrations) are 0.86 ppb and 0.3 ppb, respectively. Note that the
average concentration for tebupirimphos in surface can be divided by a
factor of 3 prior to comparison with the chronic DWLOC i.e. 0.287 ppb.
All Tier 1 EDWCs values are well below the DWLOC values.  Therefore it
can be concluded with reasonable certainty that residues in drinking
water will not pose an unacceptable level of risk.]>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. [There are no indoor or outdoor residential
uses associated with this product.]>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	[EPA concluded the organophosphate (OP) cumulative risk assessment in
July 2006. At that time all tolerance reassessment and reregistration
eligibility decisions for individual OP pesticides, including
tebupirimphos, were considered complete. The risk of cumulative effects
from tebupirimphos use has therefore been evaluated and can be
considered as posing reasonable certainty of no harm.]>

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. [Based on the Tier 1 exposure assessments
described above and on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity
data, it can be concluded that total aggregate exposure to tebupirimphos
from all label uses will utilize less than the RfD for acute and chronic
dietary exposures to the U.S. population and all population subgroups.
EPA generally has no concerns for exposures below 100 percent of the
RfD, because the RfD represents the level at or below which acute daily
aggregate exposure  or chronic aggregate exposure over a lifetime will
not pose appreciable risks to human health.  Thus, it can be concluded
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the
U.S. population from aggregate exposure to tebupirimphos residues.]>

<	2. Infants and children. [The Agency has previously concluded that the
toxicology database is adequate for Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
purposes and that there are no concerns or residual uncertainties for
pre-/post-natal toxicity. Acceptable acute and subchronic neurotoxicity
studies are available and no treatment-related neuropathology was seen
in studies conducted in hen and rat. Therefore, a FQPA factor of 1X was
selected. Based on the Tier 1 assessments above aggregate exposures were
below the acute and chronic population adjusted dose for the most highly
exposed population subgroup, children 1-6.   EPA generally has no
concerns for exposures below 100 percent of the PAD, because the RfD
represents the level at or below which acute daily aggregate exposure
or chronic aggregate exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable
risks to human health.  Thus, it can be concluded that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children
from aggregate exposure to tebupirimphos residues.>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	[Due to the limited use of tebupirimphos outside the United States and
the absence of residues in corn grain, international tolerances have not
been established and tebupirimphos has not been submitted to Codex for
review.]>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Typical Applications Information for Copper Products for Algaecide, Aquatic Herbicide, Molluscicide, Leech, and Tadpole Shrimp Control ( DP# 324176).

FROM: William Phillips, II, Ph. D., Agronomist Nicole Zinn, Biologist Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

TO: Rosanna Louie, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch, RRB3 Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

PRODUCT REVIEW PANEL: February 15, 2006 SUMMARY In support of the continued re registration process of the copper hydroxide and copper sulfate compounds, BEAD has compiled typical use and application information regarding these copper compounds as algaecides, aquatic herbicides, molluscicides, as well as leech, and tadpole shrimp controls. This information will be used by the Environmental Fate and Effect Division ( EFED) to refine their risk assessment. In an effort to maintain continuity with existing copper re registration documents, all rates and concentrations stated herein are given as parts per million ( ppm) of copper element regardless of the product stated. The analysis was conducted by BEAD using research articles as well as other relevant authoritative publications. BEAD also requested that Dr. Kurt Getsinger1, of the Army Corp of Engineers ( ACE), review the algaecide and herbicide use and application outlines. At the request of Dr. Getsinger, Dr. Mike Netherland2 of the University of Florida conducted an additional review of these sections of the memorandum. The resulting information in the outlines is a culmination of this cooperative effort. The algaecide and aquatic herbicide uses of the copper compounds provided a range of application rates between 0.2   1.0 ppm elemental copper. Average copper rates for algae control were 0.5 ppm for susceptible species and 0.75  1.0 ppm for those species that are difficult to control ( Getsinger and Netherland 2006). Average copper rates for weed control were 0.2  0.5 ppm for susceptible species and up to 1.0 ppm for those species that are difficult to control ( Getsinger and Netherland 2006). In addition, the average number of annual applications to a given water body were found to range between two and four, with none of these applications being made to more than 25  33% of a given water body at any one time.

Information regarding the molluscicide use, as well as leech and tadpole shrimp controls was difficult to obtain. As such, this analysis includes a limited amount of information regarding these uses. BEAD would hope that during the public comment phase of the re registration process that any supplemental information will be provided. Of the information obtained, copper use was found to have rates ranging from 1.0 ppm to as high as 2.5 ppm. Direct water application of copper sulfate pentahydrate for snail control was found to be within the 1.0 to 1.5 ppm concentration. Control of snails and leeches has been demonstrated to be necessary in ponds and other associated quiescent water bodies for human as well as agricultural, aquacultural, and environmental concerns. Aquaculture systems rely on direct water applications for the control of snails and tadpole shrimp at rates of 1.0 to 2.5 ppm concentration of copper. BEAD believes that the information provided herein is the best available at this time.

Overall, this information will provide the EFED, and the copper re registration team, with the best estimates of typical use information for these copper compounds as algaecides, aquatic herbicides, molluscicides, as well as leech, and tadpole shrimp controls.

1 Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Station, Vicksburg, MS 39180 6199 2 US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32653 ANALYSIS Algaecide and Herbicide Uses Due to the detail and amount of information compiled for the algaecide and herbicide uses of the copper compounds the information is provided in a tabular format. This format was derived from the basic categorical information available in common pesticide labeling.

Algaecide Applications are generally made to areas where eutrophication has become a problem and threatens the aquatic environment.

1. Target Pests   Algae ( Mat forming& Phytoplankton), Cyanobacteria ( Lyngbya& Anabaena), and Charophytes ( Chara & Nitella).

2. Use Sites   Aquaculture Facilities, Drainage ( Canal, Ditch, and Lateral), Ponds ( Farm and Industrial), Fountains, Lakes, Reservoirs ( Crop and Non Crop Irrigation, Potable), Sewage Lagoons, Stocking ( Tanks, Water Troughs, and Ponds), and Irrigation Canals ( mainly in 17 western states).

3. Application Methods ( Application methods are site specific.)  Broadcast Dry, Broadcast Spray, Dragging, Injection ( Flowing Water), Slug or Dump, and Spot Spray 4. Application & Reapplication Timing   Following the initial application a second may be made within 30 days if algal species remain a problem. The minimum waiting period between applications is two weeks. This would be the approximate time to determine if a re treatment is necessary.

5. Total Number of Applications Annually   Two to four; the number of applications is dependant on pest species and environmental factors that effect pest growth.

6. Percent Water body Treated / Treatment   25 33% maximum 7. Target Concentrations ( Algaecide rates vary from species to species as well as between active ingredient types.)  0.2 to 1.0 ppm copper element; 0.5 ppm for susceptible species and 0.75  1.0 ppm for difficult to control species.

8. Type of Copper Compounds   copper ethanolamine complexes, copper citrate, copper gluconate chelates, copper triethanolamine complex, copper hydroxide, copper sulfate pentahydrate 9. Product Examples ( For more information see product reference table on the last page.) Cutrine ® Ultra ( copper ethanolamine complexes) Algimycin ® PWF ( copper citrate, copper gluconate chelates) ( This product is also a Cyanobacteriocide.) K Tea ® ( copper triethanolamine complex, copper hydroxide) Triangle Brand Copper Sulfate Crystal ( copper sulfate pentahydrate)

10. Potential Alternatives   While the list below contains alternatives, some of those listed may only be alternatives for a single species of algae. In addition, there is no consideration given to efficacy in this list of potential alternatives. As a result, care must be exercised in making assumptions regarding using any one of the active ingredients below as a replacement for the copper compounds as an algaecide. a. Dye/ Colorant b. endothall c. diquat dibromide d. sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate ( hydrogen peroxide)

Herbicide Applications are generally made from the shoreline, then out to the center of the water body to allow fish to move away from the treated area.

1. Target Pests ( Primary)  Elodea spp., Hydrilla verticillata, Potamogeton spp., Sago Pondweed ( Stukenia pectinatus), Irrigation Canal Weed ( Zannichellia), and Annual Naiads ( Najas sp.)

2. Use Sites   Aquaculture Facilities, Drainage ( Canal, Ditch, and Lateral), Ponds ( Farm and Industrial), Lakes, Reservoirs ( Crop and Non Crop Irrigation, Potable), Sewage Lagoons, Stocking ( Tanks, Water Troughs, and Ponds), and Irrigation Canals 3. Application Methods   Broadcast Dry, Broadcast Spray, Dragging, Injection ( Flowing Water), Slug or Dump, and Spot Spray 4. Application & Reapplication Timing   Following the initial application a second may be made within 30 days if weed species remain a problem. The minimum waiting period between applications is approximately two weeks.

5. Total Number of Applications Annually   Two to three; the number of applications is dependant on pest species and environmental factors that effect pest growth.

6. Percent Water Body Treated / Treatment   25 33% maximum 7. Target Concentrations  0.2 to 1.0 ppm copper element; 0.2  0.5 ppm for susceptible species and up to 1.0 ppm for difficult to control species.

8. Type of Copper Compounds   copper ethanolamine complexes, copper citrate, copper gluconate chelates, copper sulfate pentahydrate, and copper ethylenediamine 9. Product Examples ( For more information see product reference table on the last page.).

Algimycin ®  PWF ( copper citrate, copper gluconate chelates) Cutrine ®  Ultra ( copper ethanolamine complexes) Triangle Brand Copper Sulfate Crystal ( copper sulfate pentahydrate) Komeen ( copper ethylenediamine)

10. Potential Alternatives   While the list below contains alternatives, some of those listed may only be alternatives for a single species of aquatic weeds. In addition, there is no consideration given to efficacy in this list of potential alternatives. As a result, care must be exercised in making assumptions regarding using any one of the active ingredients below as a replacement for the copper compounds as an herbicide. a. 2,4 D   Not effective on most monocots. b. Dye/ Colorant   Not effective in waters with outflow as a result of dilution. c. diquat dibromide   Hydrilla control only when copper co mixed. Irrigation restrictions apply. d. endothall   No elodea or egeria control. Irrigation restrictions apply. e. fluridone   Not for spot treatments due to prolonged exposure time requirements. f. glyphosate   Not effective on submerged species. g. imazapyr  Not effective on submerged species. h. triclopyr  Not effective on most monocots. i. carfentrazone ethyl   Undetermined efficacy on submerged species. Molluscicide and Macro invertebrate Uses Molluscicide Snails can act as an intermediate host of parasites. In the U. S., these parasites can impact humans as well as agricultural production. In swimming areas, the control of schistosome infected snails is an important human health concern. Two specific examples important to agricultural production are liver flukes in livestock and deer and the trematode Bolbophorus sp., also a fluke, in catfish. While some resources recommend copper compounds for the control of Zebra Mussels ( Dreissena polymorph) they are not widely used. Overall, large scale outbreaks of mollusk pests are not currently an issue; however, there may be national security concerns which should be considered when determining the importance of the following uses with respect to human health.

Human Health The control of schistosome infected snails with copper sulfate is labeled at a rate of 1 to 1.5 ppm copper element, for a maximum of two applications per season. To control these snails the application of copper sulfate crystals can be applied to the shoreline or snail beds of swimming areas. Second, a direct water application can be made using broadcast methods ( to include aerial) or by using an under water dispenser. For potable water reservoirs the rate is not to exceed 1.0 ppm copper element.

Livestock Liver flukes ( Fascioloides magna and Fasciola hepatica) affect deer, cattle, and sheep. F. magna is found in the Upper Great Lakes region whereas F. hepatica primarily occurs in California, the Pacific Northwest and the Gulf States. Liver flukes may cause economic harm to growers by affecting animal growth, killing sheep, and the inability to sell infected livers ( MI DNR, 2002; Grooms, 2006).

For liver fluke control in Michigan, where F. magna is the trematode of concern, white tailed deer, as the natural host, are a major source of contamination. The affect on cattle is often the inability to sell livers, but for sheep it can be fatal. Control of snails, the intermediate host, using copper sulfate or cultural control methods may be difficult to maintain or otherwise impractical ( MI DNR, 2002; Grooms, 2006).

However, in smaller moist areas, it may be feasible to use copper sulfate. Other methods in small areas include draining the area or using fences to keep the animals away from the area ( Utah, 1999). For F. hepatica, the drugs clorsulon and albendazole are available to treat infected animals ( Grooms, 2006). Commercial Catfish Ponds In catfish ponds, the trematode Bolbophorus sp. may have significant impacts on production. The first intermediate host of Bolbophorus is the Ram's Horn Snail, and the final host is the American White Pelican. Copper sulfate may be used to control the snail at the pond margin. Copper sulfate is applied in a 6 foot band around the perimeter of the pond at a rate of 10 lb copper sulfate plus 1 lb citric acid per 250 feet of pond margin. Alternatives include hydrated lime and niclosamide. However, niclosamide was only available as a Section 18 in MS until 2003 ( to date there is no section 3 registration) and can only be used in ponds with no fish. Biological controls include Black Carp and Redear Sunfish. Controlling aquatic vegetation not only improves chemical treatment effectiveness, but also eliminates a potential habitat for snails. In addition, pelicans can be discouraged from feeding in ponds, but there is no treatment available for affected fish ( Terhune, et al, 2003).

In addition to treating at the pond margins, studies have been conducted to show that applying copper sulfate at 0.6 to 1.25 ppm may be used to kill snails throughout the aquaculture ponds without harming healthy catfish. By applying copper sulfate in the fall, dissolved oxygen content, and thus catfish, were not affected because application occurred when algal growth had diminished ( Wise, Mischke, and Byars, 2005).

Orchards The brown garden snail ( Helix aspersa) feeds on the leaves, fruit, and young bark of citrus trees. Copper sulfate is recommended for use as a band on trees, at label rates, to repel snails. However, BEAD has not been able to locate label information that provides support or rates for this use. Copper sulfate is described as a cultural control method that is acceptable for organic production. There are other cultural control methods, such as copper foil bands. The Decollate Snail ( Rumina decollata) is a biological control method and chemical control methods include metaldehyde and iron phosphate ( UC IPM Online, 2005).

Macro invertebrate Control The macro invertebrates that are controlled by copper sulfate pentahydrate are leeches and tadpole shrimp. Leeches are often a problem in ponds and quiescent waters under drought conditions. While most leeches are a problem for fish, humans splashing in water can become an alternate host. At the current time, copper sulfate pentahydrate is the only registered compound for leech control in open water. Tadpole shrimp are often a problem in the production of lowland/ wetland rice. These crustaceans damage rice plants primarily through their feeding on newly emerging plants. The use of copper sulfate pentahydrate as a control for tadpole shrimp is the only control for which some types of fish can be present in the water at application. Leeches Copper sulfate pentahydrate, the only pesticide registered for control of leeches in ponds, is not registered in all states ( NCSU, 2006). Recommendations for control of leeches suggest using copper sulfate pentahydrate at a concentration of 1.25 ppm copper element ( NCSU, 2006; IN DNR). Other control methods require draining the pond, and include treating with quicklime, powdered bleach, powdered swimming pool chlorine, or allowing a dry period or freeze to kill the leeches ( Johnson). BEAD was unable to find label information for the application of quicklime, powdered bleach, or powdered swimming pool chlorine for this use.

Tadpole Shrimp Tadpole shrimp ( Triops longicaudatus) are crustaceans that damage wetland rice by feeding on the coleoptile and roots of newly emerging plants. The secondary effect of their digging to reach plant roots and to lay eggs is the increased soil and organic matter suspended in the water column. This increased sedimentation of the water column lowers the amount of photosynthetically active radiation reaching the newly emerged rice plants resulting in poor or no growth.

Since tadpole shrimp are not a feeding problem on mature rice plants, the only cultural controls are to either flood fields then drain them once the tadpole shrimp have emerged, or to plant rice immediately upon flooding fields. There are currently two means of chemical controls available, carbaryl and copper sulfate pentahydrate. Copper sulfate pentahydrate applied at 5 10 lbs per acre, or 1.25   2.5 ppm ( assuming a four inch water depth), is the recommendation for the control of tadpole shrimp in rice production ( Godfrey, 2005). REFERENCES Anonymous. 2005. Pond Management Guide. Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries ( VDGIF). http:// www. dgif. state. va. us/ fishing/ Pond_ Management/ aqua_ herb. html.

Getsinger, K. 2004. Aquatic Plant Management. Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation ( AERF). http:// www. aquatics. org. Lansing, Michigan Getsinger, K and M. Netherland. January 26, 2006. Email communication with William Phillips, II.

Godfrey, L. 2005. Rice Tadpole Shrimp. University of California IPM Online. Accessed February 2006, Web address: http:// www. ipm. ucdavis. edu/ PMG/ r682500111. html.

Grooms, D., Michigan State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Extension, Accessed February 2006, Web address: http:// cvm. msu. edu/ extension/ docs/ flukes. htm Hahn, J. and J. Fetzer, 2000, Slugs in Home Gardens, University of Minnesota Extension Service, Web address: http:// www. extension. umn. edu/ distribution/ horticulture/ DG7561. html Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Fisheries Frequently Asked Questions: Pond or Lake Management, Accessed January 2006, Web addressed: http:// www. in. gov/ dnr/ fishwild/ fish/ fishing/ faqpond. htm# leech Johnson, S. K., Leeches in Texas Waters, Texas A& M University, Web address: http:// wildlife. tamu. edu/ publications/ a1101. pdf Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 2002, Deer Liver Fluke, Web address: http:// www. michigan. gov/ dnr/ 1,1607,7 153 10370_ 12150_ 12220 26639, 00. html NCSU, Accessed January 2006, Leeches, Web Address: http:// www. ces. ncsu. edu/ nreos/ wild/ fisheries/ topics/ leeches. htm Terhune, J., D. Wise, J. Avery, L. Khoo, and A. Goodwin, 2003, Infestations of the Trematode Bolbophorus sp. in Channel Catfish, Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Web address: http:// srac. tamu. edu/ tmppdfs/ 9919857 1801fs. pdf UC IPM Online, Updated 2005, UC Pest Management Guidelines: Citrus, Brown Garden Snail, Web address: http:// www. ipm. ucdavis. edu/ PMG/ r107500111. html Utah State University Extension, December 1999, Beef Newsletter, Web addresss: http:// extension. usu. edu/ files/ agpubs/ dec99nl. htm Wise, D., C. Mischke, and T. Byars, 2005, Use of Elevated Levels of Copper Sulfate to Eliminate Snails, Thad Cochran National Warmwater Aquaculture Center News, Vol 8, No 1, Web address: http:// msstate. edu/ dept/ tcnwac/ Vol08No1Apr2005. pdf PRODUCT LABEL RREFERENCES Active Ingredient Product Name EPA Reg. No. acid blue 9 Aqushade ® 33068 1 copper Copper Sulfate Crystal 56576 1 copper Cutrine ® Ultra 8959 53 copper K Tea   1812 307 copper Triangle Brand ® Copper Sulfate Crystal 1278 8 diquat dibromide Reglone ® Dessicant 100 1061 endothall Aquathol ® K 4581 204 fluridone Sonar ® SRP 5P 67690 3 imazapyr Habitat ® 241 426


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 80 (Friday, April 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23022-23023]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08710]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9050-5]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed April 13, 2020, 10 a.m. EST Through April 20, 2020, 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20200089, Final, BLM, OR, Tucker Hill Perlite Mine Expansion
Project Plan of Operations Amendment No. 7, Review Period Ends: 05/26/
2020, Contact: Paul Whitman<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200090, Final, USFS, OR, Calf-Copeland Restoration Project,
Review Period Ends: 06/08/2020, Contact: Jennifer Christie 541-946-
1465.
EIS No. 20200091, Draft, CHSRA, CA, San Jose to Merced Project Section
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement,
Comment Period Ends: 06/08/2020, Contact: Dan McKell<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200092, Draft, NIH, MD, NIH Bethesda Surgery, Radiology, And
Lab Medicine Building, Comment Period Ends: 06/08/2020, Contact:
Valerie Nottingham<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200093, Draft, BR, NM, New Mexico Unit of the Central Arizona

Project, Comment Period Ends: 06/08/2020, Contact: Sean Heath 623-773-
6250.
EIS No. 20200094, Draft, USN, CA, Point Mugu Sea Range, Comment Period
Ends: 06/08/2020, Contact: Cory Scott<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200095, Final Supplement, DOE, KY, Disposition of Depleted
Uranium Oxide Conversion Product Generated from DOE's Inventory of
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride, Review Period Ends: 05/26/2020, Contact:
Julia Donkin<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200096, Final, USACE, CA, Westminster, East Garden Grove, CA
Flood Risk Management Study, Review Period Ends: 05/26/2020, Contact:
Michael Padilla<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200097, Final, FTA, NJ, NJ Transitgrid Traction Power System,
Contact: Donald Burns<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Under 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), FTA has issued a single document that
consists of a final environmental impact statement and a record of
decision. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA does not
apply to this action.

Amended Notice:

EIS No. 20200068, Draft, NMFS, MA, Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan Draft Amendment 23, Comment Period Ends: 06/30/2020,
Contact: Mark Grant<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 3/27/2020; Extending the Comment
Period from 5/22/2020 to 6/30/2020.

    Dated: April 20, 2020.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2020-08710 Filed 4-23-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34042-34046]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15428]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-1095]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal,
Romeoville, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard Ninth District Commander is amending the
navigational and operational restrictions of the Regulated Navigation
Area (RNA) on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) near
Romeoville, Illinois, and removing the redundant Safety Zone currently
in place. The purpose of this amendment is to improve safety and
clarify regulations for vessels transiting the navigable waters located
adjacent to and over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Aquatic Nuisance
Species electric dispersal barrier system (EDBS).

DATES: This rule is effective August 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-1095 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant John Ramos, Marine Safety Unit
Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSSC Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EDBS Electric Dispersal Barrier System
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The purpose of this rule is to eliminate a redundant safety zone
and remove several requirements from a Regulated Navigation Area that
are no

longer necessary. There currently exists, in 33 CFR 165.923, certain
navigational, environmental, and operational restrictions on all
vessels transiting the navigable waters located adjacent to and over
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Aquatic Nuisance Species electric
dispersal fish barrier. Title 33 CFR 165.923(a)(1) establishes a safety
zone in the CSSC from mile marker 296.1 to mile marker 296.7.
Additionally, 33 CFR 165.923(b)(1) establishes a regulated navigation
area from mile marker 295.5 to mile marker 297.2. There also exists, in
33 CFR 165.930, a safety zone from mile marker 286.0 to mile marker
333.3 that includes the totality of the safety zone in 33 CFR
165.923(a)(1), rendering it redundant.
    In 2013, the U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center
completed a marine safety risk assessment for the waters of the CSSC in
the vicinity of the Aquatic Nuisance Species EDBS near Romeoville,
Illinois. The overarching goal of the risk assessment was to determine
the adequacy of present risk mitigation strategies and, if necessary,
recommend alternatives to the present strategies. The report generated
at the conclusion of the risk assessment noted confusion among waterway
users regarding the boundaries and requirements for the safety zone and
RNA outlined in 33 CFR 165.923. The report also identified certain
requirements still in effect, which had basis in the existing rule,
that have since changed over the period of the rule and no longer
apply.
    On January 30, 2018, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL'' (USCG-2017-1095), 83 FR 4171. The NPRM
discussed the need for the rule and invited the public to comment on
the proposed regulatory action. During the comment period that ended
April 30, 2018, we received two comments. One comment was not relevant
to the proposed rule. The second comment, from the American Waterways
Operators, stated support for the proposed RNA amendments.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under 33 U.S.C. 1231.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to address recommended amendments
to the regulations based on the aforementioned report's conclusions and
recommendations. The changes are intended to improve safety, reduce
confusion and eliminate unnecessary burden to vessels transiting the
safety zone and RNA of the CSSC in the vicinity of the EDBS near
Romeoville, Illinois.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published
January 30, 2018. Other than some minor stylistic changes, there are no
changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in
the NPRM.
    The purpose of the safety zone delineated in Sec.  165.923(a)(1) is
to inhibit the potential transfer of live Silver or Asian carp, viable
eggs or gametes into the waterway north of the electric barrier. To
serve this purpose, the safety zone requirements outlined in 33 CFR
165.923(a)(2) restrict vessels transiting with non-potable water on
board if they intend to release that water in any form within or on the
other side of the safety zone. A larger safety zone, described at 33
CFR 165.930(a)(2), also encompasses this same area. That safety zone,
however, does not contain regulations for the transit of non-potable
water.
    The Coast Guard will eliminate the CSSC safety zone outlined in 33
CFR 165.923(a)(1). This revision eliminates redundancy in regulations
by using the larger safety zone delineated in 33 CFR 165.930(a)(2) to
regulate the CSSC. The requirements in 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2) for the
transit of non-potable water will be preserved, but incorporated into
the CSSC's RNA regulations in what is now 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2).
Therefore, 33 CFR 165.923(b) will become 33 CFR 165.923(a) with the
elimination of the safety zone. The following paragraphs describe
additional changes made to the RNA regulations.
    The Coast Guard will remove the RNA's bow boat requirement in 33
CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(C). The RNA currently requires that all up-bound
and down-bound tows that consist of barges carrying flammable liquid
cargoes (Grade A through C, flashpoint below 140 degrees Fahrenheit, or
heated to within 15 degrees Fahrenheit of flash point) engage the
services of a bow boat at all times until the entire tow is clear of
the RNA. The original bow boat requirement was intended to reduce the
possibility of a spark-induced event due to allision between a barge
carrying flammable liquid cargo and barges at the Will County
Generating Station Coal Wharf (RDB MM 296.0) while the facility
conducted coal loading and barge fleeting. At times barge fleets were
three-wide (approximately 105 feet), extended into the 160-wide cut,
less than 500 feet downstream of Barrier II-A. Since barge loading and
fleeting ceased in September 2012, the basis for this requirement no
longer exists.
    The Coast Guard is modifying the requirement in 33 CFR
165.923(b)(2)(ii)(E) that require commercial tows be made up with only
wire rope to ensure electrical connectivity between all segments of the
tow. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure electrical
connectivity between all segments of the tow to prevent arcing while
transiting the electric barrier and to prevent high contact potentials
between vessels in the tow. However, the Coast Guard recognizes that
adequate means of securing a tow configuration are not exclusive to the
use of wire rope and towboats frequently use high-tensile strength
aramid, high-modulus polyethylene, or composite fiber ropes (``soft-
lines'') as wing-wires or face-wires, and occasionally as barge
lashings. Government observers have seen towboats use a single, wire-
rope from barge winch to towboat h-bitt, thus providing adequate
electrical connectivity, if sufficiently taut, and contacting bare-
metal surfaces. The Coast Guard thus will continue to require that
commercial tows transiting the RNA ensure the maintenance of electrical
connectivity between all segments of the tow through use of wire rope,
but allow use of soft lines to be used in addition to secure a tow. To
account for use of soft-lines, the Coast Guard proposed to eliminate
the requirement that a tow exclusively use wire rope, by removing the
words ``with only'' from the paragraph and allowing an appropriate
alternative.
    Finally, the Coast Guard will add a requirement to the RNA
regulations that all vessels transit the RNA at a ``no-wake'' speed.
Currently, the RNA does not provide a maximum safe speed for vessels
transiting the RNA. Throughout the course of the marine risk
assessment, the project team ascertained that the largest marine safety
risk is electric shock to a person in the water. Video recordings and
shore-observer accounts indicate that many, smaller recreational
vessels transit the EDBS at a speed that generates significant wake.
Also, light-boat transits drag a wake that causes surging of barges
moored to the loading facility just north of the pipeline arch. A no-
wake zone will reduce this risk not only to persons aboard vessels, but
also to persons working ashore alongside the RNA.
    The aforementioned changes to the RNA regulations will require a
slight reordering of what is now 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(A) through
(K). With the removal of the safety zone, these regulations will be
found in 33 CFR

165.923(a). The removal of the bow boat requirement in 33 CFR
165.923(b)(2)(ii)(C) will cause the other requirements to move up a
letter, becoming the new 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2)(ii)(C) through (J). The
``no wake'' requirement will then become the new 33 CFR
165.923(a)(2)(ii)(K) and the requirements for the transit of non-
potable water will be added in a new 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2)(ii)(L).

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility.
    Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs
through a budgeting process. This rule has not been designated a
``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    The rule updates an already existing rule. It adds minor changes to
that already existing rule. These changes involve the elimination of a
redundant safety zone, the removal of several requirements from a
Regulated Navigational Area that are no longer necessary, and adds a
``no wake'' requirement to the safety zone. Each of these is discussed
in greater depth below. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact
on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not
adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will
not raise any novel legal or policy issues. A summary of the reasoning
for this is provided below. For a more thorough explanation of the
reasoning the reader is advised to refer to the NPRM on this rule that
was published in the Federal Register on January 30, 2018.
    This final rule eliminates the CSSC safety zone outlined in 33 CFR
165.923(a)(1). This will reduce redundancy in regulations as the CSSC
safety zone is already regulated in an equivalent manner by the larger
safety zone delineated in 33 CFR 165.930(a)(2). Hence it is expected
that there will be no cost impact associated with this change. In
addition, it will reduce confusion and uncertainty that the public may
face. The American Waterways Operators (AWO), in a comment made to the
docket, agrees with this assessment.\1\ The AWO, in its comment, stated
``removing the redundant safety zone will decrease confusion for
vessels operators in the transiting area''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public comment received from the American Waterways
Operators in response to the NPRM on this rule, dated April 30,
2018. A copy of this can be found in the docket for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A second change made by this rule is the incorporation of the
requirements for the transit of non-potable water, contained in 33 CFR
165.930(a)(2), into 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2). As this is only a move of the
water transit requirements from one section of the CFR to another part
of the CFR no costs experienced. In addition, the public will face less
uncertainty due to the reduction of overlapping regulatory
requirements.
    A third change the rule will make will be the elimination of the
RNA's bow boat requirement, contained in 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(C).
The RNA currently requires that all up and down bound tows that consist
of barges carrying flammable liquid cargoes engage the services of a
bow boat at all times until the entire tow is clear of the RNA.\2\ The
purpose of this requirement of 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(C) was to
reduce the possibility of a spark-induced event due to allision between
a barge carrying flammable liquid cargo and barges at the Will County
Generating Station Coal Warf (RDB MM 296.0) while the facility
conducted coal loading and barge fleeting. As barge loading and
fleeting at this facility stopped in September 2012, the basis of this
requirement no longer exists. Hence there are expected to be reduced
costs, for the regulated public, associated with the removal of this
requirement.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For a detailed list of the flammable liquid cargoes covered,
please reference the NPRM for this rule.
    \3\ The AWO, in a letter in response to the NPRM for this final
rulemaking (dated April 30, 2018 and contained in the docket for the
NPRM), agreed with this conclusion. It stated ``[the] AWO greatly
appreciates the removal of the bow boat requirement for all tows
moving flammable liquid cargoes. . . . These added operational costs
have been a burden to our customers, increasing cost to consumers.
The Coast Guard's proposal to eliminate the bow boat requirement
will benefit the economic well-being of the towing industry, its
customers, and the national economy''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A fourth change involves the modification of the requirement in 33
CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(E) relating to wire ropes used in commercial
tows. Currently this requires that only wire rope be used in commercial
tows. The purpose is to ensure electrical connectivity between all
segments of the tow during the duration of the tow. This reduces the
possibility of an accident stemming from the loss of power to any
segment of the tow. However, the Coast Guard recognizes that there are
high-tensile strength aramid, high-modulus polyethylene or composite
fiber ropes (``soft-lines'') that also provide adequate electrical
connectivity. The modification hence expands the ability of in-scope
vessels to use these forms of ropes as well as wire ropes. This, in
turn, provides vessel owners greater flexibility in terms of the type
of ropes they use at with no additional cost being imposed by the
regulation.
    Lastly, the Coast Guard proposed to add a requirement to the RNA
regulations that all vessels transit the RNA at a ``no-wake'' speed.
The new ``no-wake'' requirement is contained in the new 33 CFR
165.923(a)(2)(ii)(K). Currently, the RNA does not provide a maximum
safe speed for vessels transiting the RNA. This ``no-wake'' requirement
is expected to reduce the danger posed by electrocution to persons on
board vessels or falling overboard as well as to persons walking
alongside the RNA on shore.\4\ Wakes currently caused by vessels
exceeding a ``no-wake'' speed carry this danger because, in the RNA,
the Aquatic Nuisance Species electric dispersal fish barrier generates
a highly charged electrical field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The AWO, in a letter dated April 30, 2018, in response to
the NPRM for this final rule (a copy can be found in the docket
accompanying this NPRM) agrees with the Coast Guard's assessment.
The AWO writes: ``AWO applauds applauds the Coast Guard's proposal
to require all vessels to transit the RNA at a ``no-wake'' speed to
help mitigate many of the safety risks associated with transiting
the Electric Dispersal Barrier System (EDBS). Located near
Romeoville, Illinois, the EDBS is the only location the Coast Guard
will not rescue individuals who fall overboard due to the unsafe
conditions for its highly-trained personnel. Studies conducted by
the U.S. Navy confirmed a 50% fatality rate if an individual falls
into the electrified water. Given the extreme dangers associated
with the EDBS, towboat operators are extremely cautious when
transiting the RNA. Unfortunately, towboat operators have
encountered recreational vessels operating at speeds inside the RNA
that pose serious safety risks to surrounding vessels and crew. By
introducing a no-wake speed, all vessels will be required to transit
the area in a safe and responsible manner.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard received two comments in response to the NPRM
published with respect to this final rule. One comment was not relevant
to the proposed rule. The second comment,

from the American Waterways Operators, stated that it agreed with a
number of the proposed RNA amendments made in the NPRM (and included in
this final rule). The AWO's comments in favor of many of the proposed
changes have already been mentioned above. The AWO had no negative
comments in response to any of the proposed RNA amendments.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. 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.
    The revision of the safety zone and RNA will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
proposed revision imposes minor additional requirements on industry;
and provides clarity to preexisting requirements by removing
redundancies. This rule, by removing the bow boat requirement due to
the ceased barge loading and fleeting operations, is expected to reduce
regulated costs.
    The increased flexibility provided to small entity vessel owners
and operators by permitting them to use, in addition to wire ropes,
high-tensile strength aramid, high-modulus polyethylene or composite
fiber ropes (``soft-lines'') is also expected to have no cost impact on
them while simultaneously providing them with greater flexibility on
the types of wires they can use.
    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.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) nor will it
modify an existing collection.

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    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 have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

E. 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 will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
revisions of the safety zone and RNA that provide clarity to
preexisting requirements. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1
of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. Paragraph L60
pertains to establishing, disestablishing, or changing Regulated
Navigation Areas and Safety Zones. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. 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.

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. Revise Sec.  165.923 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.923  Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Romeoville, IL.

    (a) Regulated navigation area and regulations. (1) The following is
a regulated navigation area (RNA): All waters of the Chicago Sanitary
and Ship Canal, Romeoville, IL located between mile marker 295.5 and
mile marker 297.2.
    (2)(i) The general regulations contained in Sec.  165.13 apply.
    (ii) Vessels that comply with the following restrictions are
permitted to transit the RNA:
    (A) Vessels must be greater than 20 feet in length.
    (B) Vessels must not be a personal or human powered watercraft
(i.e., jet skis, waver runners, kayaks, row boats, etc.).
    (C) Vessels engaged in commercial service, as defined in 46 U.S.C.
2101(5), may not pass (meet or overtake) in the

RNA and must make a SECURIT[Eacute] call when approaching the RNA to
announce intentions and work out passing arrangements.
    (D) Commercial tows transiting the RNA must use wire rope or
appropriate alternatives to ensure electrical connectivity between all
segments of the tow.
    (E) All vessels are prohibited from loitering in the RNA.
    (F) Vessels may enter the RNA for the sole purpose of transiting to
the other side and must maintain headway throughout the transit. All
vessels and persons are prohibited from dredging, laying cable,
dragging, fishing, conducting salvage operations, or any other
activity, which could disturb the bottom of the RNA.
    (G) Except for law enforcement and emergency response personnel,
all personnel on vessels transiting the RNA should remain inside the
cabin, or as inboard as practicable. If personnel must be on open
decks, they must wear a Coast Guard approved personal flotation device.
    (H) Vessels may not moor or lay up on the right or left descending
banks of the RNA.
    (I) Towboats may not make or break tows if any portion of the
towboat or tow is located in the RNA.
    (J) Persons onboard any vessel transiting the RNA in accordance
with this rule or otherwise are advised they do so at their own risk.
    (K) All vessels transiting the RNA are required to transit at a no
wake speed but still maintain bare steerageway.
    (L)(1) All vessels are prohibited from transiting the restricted
navigation area with any non-potable water on board if they intend to
release that water in any form within, or on the other side of the
restricted navigation area. Non-potable water includes, but is not
limited to, any water taken on board to control or maintain trim,
draft, stability, or stresses of the vessel. Likewise, it includes any
water taken on board due to free communication between the hull of the
vessel and exterior water. Potable water is water treated and stored
aboard the vessel that is suitable for human consumption.
    (2) Vessels with non-potable water on board are permitted to
transit the restricted navigation area if they have taken steps to
prevent the release, in any form, of that water in or on the other side
of the restricted navigation area. Alternatively, vessels with non-
potable water on board are permitted to transit the restricted
navigation area if they have plans to dispose of the water in a
biologically sound manner.
    (3) Vessels with non-potable water aboard that intend to discharge
on the other side of the restricted navigation area must contact the
Coast Guard's Ninth District Commander or his or her designated
representatives prior to transit and obtain permission to transit and
discharge. Examples of discharges that may be approved include plans to
dispose of the water in a biologically sound manner or demonstrate
through testing that the non-potable water does not contain potential
live Silver or Asian carp, viable eggs, or gametes.
    (4) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23,
entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone by vessels
with non-potable water on board is prohibited unless authorized by the
Coast Guard's Ninth District Commander, his or her designated
representatives, or an on-scene representative.
    (5) The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, may further designate
an ``on-scene'' representative. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan,
or the on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF-FM radio
Channel 16 or through the Coast Guard Lake Michigan Command Center at
(414) 747-7182.
    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    Designated representative means the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan and Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Unit Chicago.
    On-scene representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant
or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan, to act on his or her behalf. The on-scene representative
of the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, will be aboard a Coast
Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, or other designated vessel or will be
onshore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or
loudhailer.
    Vessel means every description of watercraft of other artificial
contrivance used, or capable or being used, as a means of
transportation on water. This definition includes, but is not limited
to, barges.
    (c) Compliance. All persons and vessels must comply with this
section and any additional instructions or orders of the Coast Guard's
Ninth District Commander or his or her designated representatives. Any
person on board any vessel transiting this RNA in accordance with this
rule or otherwise does so at his or her own risk.
    (d) Waiver. For any vessel, the Coast Guard's Ninth District
Commander or his or her designated representatives may waive any of the
requirements of this section, upon finding that operational conditions
or other circumstances are such that application of this section is
unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of vessel and mariner
safety.

    Dated: July 16, 2018.
J.M. Nunan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-15428 Filed 7-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P