[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 116 (Monday, June 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 27949]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12714]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Implementation
to the Equal Access to Justice Act

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved
information collection. The information is needed to determine an
applicant's eligibility for an award of attorney's fees and other
expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda
Thompson, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 800 Independence
Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0539.
    Title: Implementation to the Equal Access to Justice Act.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Equal Access to Justice Act provides for the award
of attorney fees and other expenses to eligible individuals and
entities who are prevailing parties in administrative proceedings
before government agencies. Certain information must be obtained from
the applicant in order to determine such applicant's eligibility for
the EAJA award.
    Respondents: Approximately 17 applicants.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 40 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 680 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2017.
Ronda L. Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2017-12714 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


DRAFT 1 of 9 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING JUNE 13  15, 2006 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: EPA HQ OPP 2006 0217 TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2006 Holiday Inn  National Airport 2650 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 ( 703) 684 7200 ANALYSIS OF A NATURAL REFUGE OF NON COTTON HOSTS FOR MONSANTO'S BOLLGARD II COTTON.

8: 30 A. M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  Steven Heeringa, Ph. D., FIFRA SAP Chair 8: 40 A. M. Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official   Myrta R. Christian 8: 45 A. M. Welcome  Clifford Gabriel, Ph. D., Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA 8: 55 A. M. Opening Remarks   Janet Andersen, Ph. D., Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 9: 00 A. M. Tobacco Budworm Sampling and Gossypol Analysis   Alan Reynolds, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 9: 30 A. M. Effective Refuge Calculations and Modeling for Tobacco Budworm and Cotton Bollworm   Sharlene Matten, Ph. D., Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 10: 00 A. M. BREAK 10: 15 A. M. Public Comments 12: 00 P. M. LUNCH 1: 00 P. M. Questions to the Panel Sampling and Methodology 1) The Panel is asked to comment on the pheromone sampling strategy employed by Monsanto in which only male tobacco budworm ( TBW) were trapped.

Is this an appropriate sampling strategy? Can inferences about female TBW be derived from data gathered exclusively with males? DRAFT 2 of 9 2) Monsanto's TBW sampling and gossypol analyses were conducted over a two year period ( 2004 and 2005). For several states ( Tennessee and E. Texas) data were collected in only one year. The trends between seasons were generally consistent, although no statistical/ correlation analysis was performed.

The Panel is asked to comment on what uncertainties exist from using data collected from this time period ( i. e., 2 years for North Carolina and Georgia and 1 year for Tennessee and E. Texas) to adequately assess the potential of natural refuge ( i. e., non cotton hosts) as a substitute for structured refuge ( i. e., non Bt cotton)?

3: 00 P. M. BREAK 3: 15 P. M. Panel Discussion ( continued)

3) In some counties/ states, extremely low numbers of TBW were trapped, with some traps collecting only one insect. In Tennessee, TBW numbers were so low that data were not reported at all for 2004. In addition, cotton monitoring efforts have been recently hampered by low availability of TBW samples ( possibly due to a suppressive effect of Bt cotton).

Do low overall numbers of TBW trap captures in some areas affect the ability to assess the effectiveness of natural refuge for IRM? What conclusions, if any, should be drawn from the failure to capture Bt susceptible TBW at particular sites?

Statistical Analyses 4) Monsanto used the Fisher's Exact Test to determine whether the gossypol data could be pooled. Data were pooled for individual traps ( i. e. for multiple collection dates for each month) and for counties ( i. e. including all traps within a county for each month).

The Panel is asked to comment on Monsanto's approach to pooling the gossypol data.

5: 30 P. M. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT 3 of 9 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING JUNE 13  15, 2006 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: EPA HQ OPP 2006 0217 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2006 Holiday Inn  National Airport 2650 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 ( 703) 684 7200 ANALYSIS OF A NATURAL REFUGE OF NON COTTON HOSTS FOR MONSANTO'S BOLLGARD II COTTON.

8: 30 A. M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  Steven Heeringa, Ph. D., FIFRA SAP Chair 8: 35 A. M. Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official   Myrta R. Christian 8: 40 A. M. Follow up from Previous Day's Discussion   Alan Reynolds and Sharlene Matten, Ph. D. Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( Office of Pesticide Programs) 9: 00 A. M. Panel Discussion ( continued)

Statistical Analyses 5) Monsanto did not conduct any statistical analyses comparing the two sampling years ( 2004 and 2005). The Panel is asked to comment on whether valid comparisons ( on a qualitative basis) can be made between the two years without statistical analyses? Please describe any meta statistical analysis that could improve the overall understanding of the effectiveness of natural refuge across locations and across time.

10: 00 A. M. BREAK 10: 15 A. M. Panel Discussion ( continued)

Effective Refuge Calculation and Modeling 6) Monsanto has corrected their calculation of effective refuge size presented in Gustafson and Head, 2004 based on the Agency's ( BPPD, 2004b) and June 2004' s Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel's ( SAP) recommendations ( SAP, 2004). Modifications to the calculation of the effective refuge size involved removing the assumption of constant effective refuge size and explicitly accounting for the lower production DRAFT 4 of 9 of CBW and TBW in cotton where survival of these insects is reduced. Estimation of the effective refuge now assumes a regionally specific annual cycle of effective refuge size, according to data collected in alternative host studies of CBW ( Head and Voth, 2004) and TBW ( Head and Gustafson, 2005). These data were combined with corn planting estimates on either the regional scale for CBW, or county scale for TBW, to estimate effective ( i. e., current ( structured non Bt cotton + non cotton) and natural ( non cotton only) refuge sizes for each of what were conservatively assumed to be six annual generations for each pest.

a) Estimation of the relative number of CBW adult moths produced by each of the five sub compartments is given by the following equation: Mij = Aij Eij LBij LSij ( Equation 1).

[ M is the number of adult moths produced per unit area of the region; A is the proportion of the region occupied by the crop type of interest; E is the relative ( to cotton, i. e. Ecotton= 1) number of effective eggs ( eggs that would produce adults in the absence of B. t. or pyrethroid sprays) laid in the crop type; LB is the fraction of larvae surviving in the presence of the B. t. crop; LS is the fraction of larvae surviving a pyrethroid insecticide spray on the crop; the subscript i refers to the compartment ( B for B. t. or R for refuge); and the subscript j refers to the particular crop type within the compartment ( 1 = cotton, 2 = corn, 3 = other C3 host crop).]

The effective refuge, Reff, is defined as the proportion of adult moths that would have been produced in the refuge compartment ( non Bt cotton, non Bt corn, non cotton C3 crops) in the absence of any induced larval mortality:

Reff = 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 B B R R R R R R M M M M M M M M + + + + + + ( Equation 5; used when CBW populations were actively feedings in cotton, Generations 3 5)

Effective refuge estimations for all of the " non cotton" generations are given by:

NC eff R =

2 3 2 3 2 B R R R R M M M M M + + + ( Equation 6)

The natural refuge component ( i. e., non cotton C3 crops + non Bt corn components) of the total effective refuge is as follows:

CBW nat R =

2 1 3 2 3 2 B B R R R R M M M M M M + + + + ( Equation 7)

The Agency asks the SAP to comment on the estimated CBW effective and natural refuge calculations. DRAFT 5 of 9 b) Pooled, county level estimates of the percent cotton reared TBW moths were combined with county level landcover information to estimate the current effective refuge and natural refuge for each county per month. The relative TBW productivity of non cotton areas within a county for a specific month is given as:

ENC =

NC NBTC NBTC NBTC A A P A   ) / ( ( Equation 8)

The current effective refuge ( non Bt cotton + non cotton hosts) for TBW is defined as the proportion of TBW moths actually produced in the effective refuge compartment prior to selection by Bt cotton:

TBW eff R = ) ( ) (

NC NC NBTC BTC NC NC NBTC E A A A E A A + + + ( Equation 9)

The estimated natural refuge ( non cotton hosts) for TBW is given by the following equation:

TBW nat R = ) ( NC NC NBTC BTC NC NC E A A A E A + + ( Equation 10)

The Agency asks the SAP to comment on the estimated TBW effective and natural refuge calculations.

12: 00 P. M. LUNCH 1: 00 P. M. Panel Discussion ( continued)

7) Monsanto examined the durability of each of the three Bt cotton products ( i. e., Bollgard, WideStrike, and Bollgard II) individually and together in the marketplace using a three gene model. The Bt protein, Cry1Ac, is common to all three products. The presence of each of these products in the marketplace selects for potential resistance to Bollgard cotton, expressing only the Cry1Ac protein, and also selects for resistance to the other two products through the common selection for Cry1Ac resistance. The products vary greatly in the rate at which they select for resistance to Cry1Ac because of the presence of additional insecticidal proteins in Bollgard II ( Cry2Ab2) and in WideStrike ( Cry1F).

The three gene model for insect resistance evolution used in this study is based on a conceptual model similar to that proposed by Dow AgroSciences ( DAS) for its product, WideStrike cotton, and was reviewed by a recent U. S. EPA Scientific Advisory Panel ( SAP) ( SAP, 2004). However, the SAP questioned some of the mathematical details of the DAS model and Monsanto has made some changes to DRAFT 6 of 9 address the SAP's concerns. As shown in schematic form in Figure 3, Appendix 2, the three gene model is based on the following assumptions concerning the mechanism of activity of the three commercial Bt cotton products ( Bollgard, Bollgard II, and WideStrike cotton):

  The Cry1Ac toxin, present in all three products, binds to two receptors, 60% to receptor A and 40% to receptor B.   The Cry1F toxin, present only in WideStrike cotton, binds exclusively to receptor A.   The Cry2Ab2 toxin, present only in Bollgard II cotton, binds exclusively to receptor C.

a) CBW. Based both on the intrinsic durability of each of the three B. t. cotton products ( Figure 4, Appendix 2) and the three gene modeling analyses for all three Bt cotton products together in the marketplace ( Table 14, Appendix 2), Bollgard II retained the highest level of efficacy against CBW in all scenarios ( all regions). Given the assumptions of the three gene model and its limitations, there is likely enough effective natural refuge to be sufficient to delay the evolution of resistance to Bollgard II cotton for more than 25 years ( not a precise number of years) under all plausible scenarios in all four regions ( Table 14, Appendix 2). This is because of the relatively high mortality of individuals heterozygous to Cry1Ac resistance in the presence of Cry2Ab2, as compared to WideStrike. WideStrike is intermediate in many scenarios because of the shared binding receptor between Cry1F and CryAc and the likelihood of cross resistance is greater. Bollgard is weakest in all scenarios because there is no high dose for CBW and it is a single gene product. Monsanto's models predict that CBW resistance to Bollgard cotton will evolve in less than the 30 year horizon in the Georgia, Mississippi, and E. Texas regions in most scenarios except for 2 C ( Bollgard = 0.1; Bollgard II = 0.8; WideStrike = 0.1). Resistance always took at least 30 years to evolve to all three Bt cotton products in the North Carolina region in all scenarios, even the natural refuge scenarios. When Bollgard cotton acreage is minimized, Bollgard II and WideStrike longevity is maximized ( Table 14). Large amounts of Bollgard II cotton in the marketplace increased the durability of both Bollgard and WideStrike ( Table 14, Appendix 2). Uncertainties in the pheromone captures, estimation of adult productivity, carbon isotope analyses, spatial analysis, estimation of effective refuge calculation, degree of shared binding affinity of Cry1Ac to receptor A and B, genetics of resistance, resistance mechanism, initial resistance allele frequency, and other modeling assumptions affect the precision and accuracy of the modeling predictions. Monsanto's modeling also does not consider pre selection for Cry1Ac resistance. Ten years of selection pressure ( since 1996) for resistance to Cry1Ac has already occurred. Field resistance to Cry1Ac places additional selection pressure on the Cry2Ab2 component of Bollgard II cotton.

Given the assumptions and uncertainties in Monsanto's CBW modeling efforts, the Agency asks the SAP to comment on the utility of the modeling to predict the DRAFT 7 of 9 effectiveness of natural ( non cotton C3 crops + non Bt corn) vs. current effective refuge ( non Bt cotton + non Bt corn + non cotton C3 crops) to manage CBW resistance to the toxins expressed in Bollgard II. Discuss the impact of preselection for Cry1Ac resistance on the modeling output.

b) TBW. The intrinsic durability of all three Bt cotton products is much greater for TBW than for CBW because of the " high dose" of Cry1Ac for TBW expressed in all three products. In virtually all cases, all three products retained their efficacy ( i. e., no resistance) for more than 30 years ( maximum time for the simulation) even if all cotton in a region is planted to that product and no structured refuge is required ( i. e., all natural refuge). The only exceptions occur for Bollgard cotton in Tennessee and Mississippi. Given the assumptions of the three gene model and its limitations, there is likely enough effective natural refuge to be sufficient to delay the evolution of resistance to Bollgard II cotton for more than 30 years ( i. e., the time horizon of the model, not to be interpreted as a precise number of years) under all plausible scenarios in all four regions. This is due to the extremely high efficacy of Cry1Ac against TBW, and the fact that Cry1Ac is present in all three Bt cotton products. In the state with the lowest natural refuge for TBW, Mississippi ( see Table 13, Appendix 2), resistance to Cry1Ac and Cry1F evolved after 21 years in scenario 1 N if the structured refuge requirements for Bollgard and WideStrike cotton were removed. Uncertainties in the pheromone captures, gossypol analyses, spatial analysis, estimation of effective refuge calculation, degree of shared binding affinity of Cry1Ac to receptor A and B, genetics of resistance, resistance mechanism, initial resistance allele frequency, and other modeling assumptions affect the precision and accuracy of the modeling predictions. Monsanto's modeling also does not consider pre selection for Cry1Ac resistance. Ten years of selection pressure ( since 1996) for resistance to Cry1Ac has already occurred. Field resistance to Cry1Ac places additional selection pressure on the Cry2Ab2 component of Bollgard II cotton.

Given the assumptions and uncertainties in Monsanto's TBW modeling efforts, the Agency asks the SAP to comment on the utility of the modeling to predict the effectiveness of natural ( non cotton hosts) vs. current effective refuge ( non Bt cotton + non cotton hosts) to manage TBW resistance to the Bt toxins expressed in Bollgard II cotton. Discuss the impact of pre selection for Cry1Ac resistance on the modeling output.

3: 00 P. M. BREAK 3: 15 P. M. Panel Discussion ( continued)

8) Modeling suggests that the overall durability of Bollgard II cotton can be enhanced if Bollgard cotton is removed from the marketplace. This conclusion is supported by other researchers who examined the benefit of managing resistance evolution to two toxins with dissimilar modes of action using a pyramided DRAFT 8 of 9 approach ( Zhao et al., 2005; Roush, 1998; Livingston et al., 2004; Hurley, 2000; Caprio, 2005). On the other hand, the concurrent use of single and two gene Bt plants can offer exposed populations a " stepping stone" to develop resistance to both proteins. Bollgard, Widestrike, and Bollgard II cotton exist in a mosaic in southeastern cotton growing regions, with Bollgard dominating the total acreage. In 2004, Bollgard cotton acreage accounted for > 95% of all Bt cotton acreage in the U. S. ( see Head et al., 2005, MRID# 467172 03). Encouraging the adoption of Bollgard II will increase the overall durability of all three Bt cotton products. From an insect management point of view, removal of Bollgard cotton from the marketplace would benefit the two gene products, Bollgard II and WideStrike.

The Panel is asked to address the implications for selection for CBW and TBW resistance if the mosaic of single gene and dual gene products remains in the marketplace for a number of years. How would selection pressure be reduced if the single gene product is removed from the marketplace gradually ( e. g., > 3 years) or rapidly ( e. g.,   3 years) over a period of years?

5: 00 P. M. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT 9 of 9 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING JUNE 13  15, 2006 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: EPA HQ OPP 2006 0217 THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2006 Holiday Inn  National Airport 2650 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 ( 703) 684 7200 ANALYSIS OF A NATURAL REFUGE OF NON COTTON HOSTS FOR MONSANTO'S BOLLGARD II COTTON.

8: 30 A. M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  Steven Heeringa, Ph. D., FIFRA SAP Chair 8: 35 A. M. Administrative Procedures by Designated Federal Official  Myrta R. Christian 8: 40 A. M. Follow up from Previous Day's Discussion  Alan Reynolds and Sharlene Matten, Ph. D. Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division ( Office of Pesticide Programs) 9: 00 A. M. Panel Discussion ( continued)

Overall Data/ Results Interpretation 9) There are three major variables to evaluating structured refuge for Bt crops: a) production of a sufficient number of susceptible insects relative to any resistant survivors of the Bt crop, b) proximity of the refuge to the transgenic crop to facilitate random mating between susceptible ( from the refuge) and resistant ( from the Bt crop) insects, and c) developmental synchrony of the refuge with the transgenic crop to promote random mating.

Given Monsanto's sampling, gossypol analysis, spatial and temporal analyses, and modeling evaluation, the Agency asks the panel to comment on whether Monsanto's analysis scientifically supports the conclusion that natural refuge will be comparable to the effectiveness of structured refuge for management of TBW resistance to the Bt proteins expressed in Bollgard II cotton for each of the four regions: the Carolinas, Georgia, Mississippi Delta, and Texas.

11: 00 A. M. ADJOURNMENT


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 241 (Friday, December 16, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76944-76946]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27105]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0568; FRL-10484-01-OCSPP]

Propyzamide; Extension of Tolerance for Emergency Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation extends a time-limited tolerance for residues
of the herbicide propyzamide in or on cranberry at 1 part per million
(ppm) for an additional 3-year period. This tolerance will expire and
is revoked on December 31, 2025. This action is in response to EPA's
granting of an emergency exemption under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide
on cranberry. In addition, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption
from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in
food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency
exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 16, 2022. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 14, 2023,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0568, is available at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Rosenblatt, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0568 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All requests must be in writing and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or before February 14, 2023. Addresses
for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are
provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0568, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about

dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA issued a final rule, published in the Federal Register of
November 12, 2019 (84 FR 60937) (FRL-10000-50), which announced that on
its own initiative under FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, it
established a time-limited tolerance for the residues of propyzamide in
or on cranberry at 1 ppm, with an expiration date of December 31, 2022.
EPA established the tolerance because FFDCA section 408(l)(6) requires
EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the
requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food
that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency
exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA section 18. Such tolerances can be
established without providing notice or period for public comment.
    EPA received a request to extend the use of propyzamide on
cranberry for this year's growing season due to heavy infestations in
cranberry bogs of the parasitic weed, dodder, which is not adequately
controlled with available alternatives. Without a suitable pesticide
control, dodder infestations were expected to cause serious damage to
the cranberry crops resulting in significant economic losses. After
having reviewed the submission, EPA concurred that emergency conditions
exist and authorized the use of propyzamide on cranberry for control of
dodder in Massachusetts under FIFRA section 18.
    EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of
propyzamide in or on cranberry. In doing so, EPA considered the safety
standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2) and decided that the necessary
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the
safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. The data and other relevant
material have been evaluated and discussed in the final rule published
in the Federal Register of November 12, 2019 (84 FR 60937) (FRL-10000-
50). Based on that data and information considered, the Agency
reaffirms that extension of the time-limited tolerance will continue to
meet the requirements of FFDCA section 408(l)(6). Therefore, the time-
limited tolerance is extended for an additional 3-year period. EPA will
publish a document in the Federal Register to remove the revoked
tolerance from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Although this
tolerance will expire and is revoked on December 31, 2025, under FFDCA
section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the
amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on cranberry after
that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a
manner that was lawful under FIFRA and the application occurred prior
to the revocation of the tolerance. EPA will take action to revoke this
tolerance earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other
relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are
not safe.

III. International Residue Limits

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

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e) and
408(1)(6). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these
types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order
12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance
with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(1)(6), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition,
this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 8, 2022.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

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

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.317, revise the table in paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.317  Propyzamide; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

                        Table 2 to Paragraph (b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Expiration/
                 Commodity                    Parts per     revocation
                                               million         date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cranberry..................................           1      12/31/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-27105 Filed 12-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


APPENDIX 5 Phoenix Mesa Metropolitan Statistical Area Map 0 20 40 10 Miles Phoenix Mesa Metropolitan Statistical Area


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33168-33170]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15097]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81136; File No. SR-GEMX-2017-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Schedule of Fees To Assess Connectivity Fees

July 13, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 29, 2017, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Schedule of Fees to assess fees
for OTTO Port, CTI Port, FIX Port, FIX Drop Port and Disaster Recovery
Port connectivity, and to provide monthly [sic] cap on those fees of
$7,500. The Exchange is also proposing to delete fees and descriptions
thereof for connectivity no longer used by the Exchange.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at www.ise.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Schedule of
Fees to assess fees for OTTO \3\ Port, CTI \4\ Port, FIX \5\ Port, FIX
Drop \6\ Port and Disaster Recovery Port \7\ connectivity, and to
provide a monthly cap on those fees of $7,500. The Exchange recently
completed the migration of the Exchange's trading system to the Nasdaq
INET architecture.\8\ This migration included the adoption of new
connectivity, including OTTO, CTI, FIX, FIX Drop, Disaster Recovery
Ports, which are the same as connectivity options currently used to
connect to the Exchange's affiliates, including Nasdaq Options Market
(``NOM''), Nasdaq BX (``BX'') and Nasdaq Phlx (``Phlx'').\9\ When the
Exchange adopted these new ports it did not assess a fee for them so
that members would not be double charged for connectivity to the old
Exchange architecture and the new Nasdaq INET architecture.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ OTTO is an interface that allows market participants to
connect and send orders, auction orders and auction responses into
ISE Gemini [sic]. Data includes the following: (1) Options Auction
Notifications (e.g., Flash, PIM, Solicitation and Facilitation or
other information); (2) Options Symbol Directory Messages; (3)
System Event Messages (e.g., start of messages, start of system
hours, start of quoting, start of opening); (5) Option Trading
Action Messages (e.g., halts, resumes); (6) Execution Messages; (7)
Order Messages (order messages, risk protection triggers or purge
notifications).
    \4\ CTI is a real-time clearing trade update is a message that
is sent to a member after an execution has occurred and contains
trade details. The message containing the trade details is also
simultaneously sent to The Options Clearing Corporation. The
information includes, among other things, the following: (i) The
Clearing Member Trade Agreement or ``CMTA'' or The Options Clearing
Corporation or ``OCC'' number; (ii) Exchange badge or house number;
(iii) the Exchange internal firm identifier; and (iv) an indicator
which will distinguish electronic and non-electronically delivered
orders; (v) liquidity indicators and transaction type for billing
purposes; (vi) capacity.
    \5\ FIX is an interface that allows market participants to
connect and send orders and auction orders into ISE Gemini [sic].
Data includes the following: (1) Options Symbol Directory Messages;
(2) System Event Messages (e.g., start of messages, start of system
hours, start of quoting, start of opening); (3) Option Trading
Action Messages (e.g., halts, resumes); (4) Execution Messages; (5)
Order Messages (order messages, risk protection triggers or purge
notifications).
    \6\ FIX Drop is a real-time order and execution update is a
message that is sent to a member after an order been received/
modified or an execution has occurred and contains trade details.
The information includes, among other things, the following: (1)
Executions, (2) cancellations, (3) modifications to an existing
order, (4) busts or post-trade corrections.
    \7\ Disaster Recovery ports provide connectivity to the
exchange's disaster recovery data center in Chicago to be utilized
in the event the exchange has to fail over during the trading day.
DR Ports are available for SQF, SQF Purge, CTI, OTTO, FIX and FIX
Drop.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80011 (February 10,
2017), 82 FR 10927 (February 16, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2016-17).
    \9\ See NOM Rules, Chapter XV Options Pricing, Sec. 3 NOM--Ports
and other Services; BX Rules, Chapter XV Options Pricing, Sec. 3
BX--Ports and other Services; and Phlx Pricing Schedule, VII. Other
Member Fees, B. Port Fees.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80213 (March 10,
2017), 82 FR 14066, 37499 [sic] (March 16, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2017-
10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend the Nasdaq GEMX Schedule of Fees
Section IV.E.4. to assess a fee of $650 per month, per port, per
account number \11\ for OTTO, CTI, FIX, and FIX Drop ports. The
Exchange is proposing to assess a fee of $50 per month, per port, per
account number for Disaster Recovery Ports. The Exchange notes that it
is adding ``per account number'' to the fees described above to clarify
that

billing for the ports is also based on account numbers, which allows
the Exchange to identify the members that are fee liable for the port.
The Exchange notes that this is similar to how the Exchange's sister
exchanges bill these fees.\12\ Last, the Exchange is proposing to limit
the total amount of fees paid for these ports by applying a $7,500
monthly fee cap per member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Account numbers are used to identify member order entry
ports.
    \12\ See, e.g., NOM Rules, Chapter XV Options Pricing, Section
3(b) (billing per port, per month, per mnemonic).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to delete ``Market Makers API
Quoting, Order Entry and Listening'' and its associated $100 per month,
per API fee from Nasdaq GEMX Schedule of Fees Section IV.E.1., and
``Nasdaq GEMX Only'' and its associated $100 per session, per month fee
from Nasdaq GEMX Schedule of Fees Section IV.E.2. (EAM Options
API).\13\ The Exchange notes that both of these connectivity options
are no longer available on the Exchange post-migration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange is retaining Nasdaq GEMX and Nasdaq ISE
connectivity until ISE connectivity is migrated, which the Exchange
anticipates will occur in the third quarter 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable because
they are similar to the fees assessed by other exchanges. As noted
above, NOM, BX and Phlx provide some or all of the same connectivity
options. For example, Nasdaq assesses a fee of $750 per port, per month
for OTTO Ports, $650 per port, per month for CTI, FIX (order entry)
Ports and FIX Drop Ports. Moreover, Nasdaq assesses a fee of $25 per
port, per month for equities Disaster recovery ports (OUCH, RASH, and
DROP).\16\ Although the proposed Disaster Recovery port fee is higher
than the fee assessed by Nasdaq, the higher fee is reasonable because
it reflects the ongoing costs in maintaining and supporting the ports,
as well as the initial investment in such ports for the Exchange and
the fewer subscribers among which it may spread fixed costs associated
with offering the ports. As such, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees are consistent with those of other exchanges and
therefore reasonable. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
$7,500 fee cap is reasonable because, taken together with the proposed
new fees, it will allow the Exchange to cover costs while reducing the
impact of the fees on members that subscribe to a large number of
ports. Because members generally need an increasing number of ports as
provided under the Nasdaq GEMX Schedule of Fees Section IV.E.4. as
their activity expands on the Exchange, the Exchange believes that
without such a cap members may be inhibited from growing their activity
on the Exchange. As a general principal, the Exchange believes that
greater participation on the Exchange by members improves market
quality for all market participants. Thus, in arriving at a fee cap of
$7,500, the Exchange balanced the desire to improve market quality
against the need to cover costs and make a profit. Last, the Exchange
notes that BX provides its options participants a $7,500 per month fee
cap for its options market connectivity.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Rule 7015(g)(2).
    \17\ See BX Rules, Chapter XV Options Pricing, Sec. 3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are an equitable
allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange
must ultimately assesses [sic] fees to cover the costs associated with
offering the connectivity. The Exchange notes that members have
historically paid fees for Exchange connectivity and, in adopting the
connectivity for which the Exchange is proposing to assess a fee, it
noted that it was not adopting a fee at that time to avoid being double
charged for connectivity to the old Exchange architecture and the new
Nasdaq INET architecture. Now that members no longer have connectivity
to the old Exchange architecture, and therefore are not assessed
connectivity fees, the Exchange is now proposing to assess fees for
connectivity to the new Nasdaq INET architecture of the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that the proposed $7,500 fee cap is an equitable
allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the [sic] any
member that subscribes to connectivity under the rule that would
otherwise exceed $7,500 per month will have its fees capped. Although
members that do not have fees under the rule in excess of $7,500 per
month will not benefit from the fee cap, the Exchange notes that any
member may increase the number of ports subscribed to receive the fee
cap, should their activity on the Exchange warrant increased
subscription. Moreover, members that do not qualify for the fee cap
will benefit from the greater liquidity provided by members that
conduct a sufficient level of activity on the Exchange to require
connectivity in excess of the fee cap. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fees are an equitable allocation and are not
unfairly discriminatory.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may connect to third parties instead of directly
connecting to the Exchange, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition
is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the proposed changes to the charges assessed for
connectivity to the Exchange are consistent with the fees assessed by
other exchanges for the same or similar connectivity. Moreover, the
Exchange must assess fees to cover the costs incurred in providing
connectivity and members had been assessed fees for Exchange
connectivity prior to the sunset of the old Exchange architecture. As a
consequence, competition will not be burdened by the proposed fees. In
sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\18\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public
interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-GEMX-2017-29 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2017-29. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2017-29, and should be
submitted on or before August 9, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-15097 Filed 7-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48714]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0836]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Newark Bay, Newark, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Lehigh Valley Bridge across the
Newark Bay, mile 4.3, at Newark, New Jersey. The deviation is necessary
to replace bridge timber on the lift span. This deviation allows the
bridge to remain in the closed-to navigation position during the
construction periods.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on October 14, 2018, to
6 p.m. on November 12, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0836 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Bridge Management
Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone
212-514-4336, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The owner of the bridge, Consolidated Rail
Corporation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating
schedule to replace bridge timber on the lift span. The Lehigh Valley
Bridge across the Newark Bay, mile 4.3, at Newark, New Jersey is a lift
bridge with a vertical clearance in the closed position of 35 feet at
mean high water and 39 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge
operating regulations are listed at Sec. Sec.  117.5 and 117.735.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Lehigh Valley Bridge shall
remain in the closed position from 6 a.m. on October 14, 2018 to 6 p.m.
on October 15, 2018; from 6 a.m. on October 21 to 6 p.m. on October 22,
2018; and from 6 a.m. on October 28, 2018 to 6 p.m. on October 29,
2018. Should inclement weather occur, the following rain dates may be
used: (a) From 6 a.m. on November 4, 2018 to 6 p.m. on November 5,
2018; or (b) from 6 a.m. on November 11, 2018 to 6 p.m. on November 12,
2018.
    The waterway is transited by recreational and commercial vessels.
Coordination with known waterway users has indicated no objection to
the closure. Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed
position may do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for
emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to
pass.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: September 21, 2018.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-21049 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 153 (Friday, August 8, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46390-46392]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1175]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On February 16, 2011, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that contained
an erroneous table. This document provides corrections to that table,
to be used in lieu of the information published on February 16, 2011.
The table provided here represents the flooding sources, location of
referenced elevations, effective and modified elevations, and
communities affected for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (All
Jurisdictions).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before November 6, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1175, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA publishes proposed determinations of
Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for
communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP), in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are
used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.
    In the proposed rule published at 76 FR 8982-8984, in the February
16, 2011, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under
the authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled ``Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania all Jurisdictions'' addressed the flooding sources: Blair
Mill Run, Blair Mill Run Tributary, Huntingdon Valley Creek, Meadow
Brook, Pennypack Creek, Pennypack Creek Branch, Pennypack Creek
Tributary No. 1, Pine Run, Rapp Run, Sandy Run, Sandy Run Tributary No.
1, Sandy Run Tributary No. 1a

(downstream), Sandy Run Tributary No. 1a (upstream), Southampton Creek,
Tributary No. 2 to Pine Run, and War Memorial Creek. That table
contained inaccurate information as to the location of referenced
elevation, effective and modified elevation in feet, and/or communities
affected for the flooding sources Sandy Run, Sandy Run Tributary No. 1
and Sandy Run Tributary No. 1a (downstream). In addition, the proposed
modifications listed for Sandy Run Tributary No. 1a (upstream) has been
removed from the table. FEMA is no longer proposing any flood elevation
determination changes along Sandy Run Tributary No. 1a (upstream) as
identified in the above-referenced rulemaking publication. In this
document, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate
information, to address these prior errors. The information provided
below should be used in lieu of that previously published.

Correction

    In Proposed rule FR Doc. 2011-3420, beginning on page 8978 in the
issue of February 16, 2011, make the following correction. On pages
8982-8984, correct the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania table as
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                feet  (NAVD)
                                       Location of referenced     Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)                 elevation**        ground [caret] Elevation    Communities affected
                                                                    in meters (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Montgomery County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blair Mill Run......................  At the Pennypack Creek          +212         +211  Borough of Hatboro,
                                       confluence.                                        Township of Horsham,
                                                                                Township of Upper
                                                                                Moreland.
                                      At the downstream side          +259         +261
                                       of County Line Road.
Blair Mill Run Tributary............  At the upstream side of         +227         +228  Borough of Hatboro.
                                       West Monument Avenue.
                                      At the downstream side          +247         +252
                                       of East County Line
                                       Road.
Huntingdon Valley Creek.............  Approximately 800 feet          +119         +120  Borough of Bryn Athyn,
                                       downstream of Red Lion                             Township of Lower
                                       Road.                                              Moreland.
                                      Approximately 0.9 mile          +264         +267
                                       upstream of Byberry
                                       Road.
Meadow Brook........................  At the Pennypack Creek          +115         +118  Township of Abington,
                                       confluence.                                        Township of Lower
                                                                                Moreland.
                                      Approximately 1,000             None         +287
                                       feet upstream of the
                                       most upstream State
                                       Highway 2017 crossing.
Pennypack Creek.....................  Approximately 1,200              +99         +100  Borough of Bryn Athyn,
                                       feet downstream of                                 Borough of Hatboro,
                                       Moredon Road.                                      Township of Abington,
                                                                                Township of Horsham,
                                                                                Township of Lower
                                                                                Moreland, Township of
                                                                                Upper Dublin, Township
                                                                                of Upper Moreland.
                                      Approximately 1.0 mile          None         +359
                                       upstream of Mann Road.
Pennypack Creek Branch..............  Approximately 400 feet          +299         +298  Township of Horsham.
                                       downstream of Witmer
                                       Road.
                                      Approximately 0.7 mile          None         +362
                                       upstream of Witmer
                                       Road.
Pennypack Creek Tributary No. 1.....  At the Pennypack Creek          +198         +204  Borough of Hatboro,
                                       confluence.                                        Township of Horsham,
                                                                                Township of Upper
                                                                                Moreland.
                                      Approximately 0.7 mile          None         +341
                                       upstream of Dresher
                                       Road.
Pine Run............................  At the upstream side of         +171         +176  Township of Upper
                                       State Highway 309.                                 Dublin.
                                      Approximately 800 feet          +231         +239
                                       upstream of
                                       Dreshertown Road.
Rapp Run............................  At the Pine Run                 +177         +183  Township of Upper
                                       confluence.                                        Dublin.
                                      Approximately 0.5 mile          +351         +355
                                       upstream of the most
                                       upstream Lexington
                                       Drive crossing.
Sandy Run...........................  Approximately 300 feet          None         +159  Township of Abington,
                                       downstream of                                      Township of
                                       Bethlehem Pike.                                    Springfield, Township
                                                                                of Upper Dublin,
                                                                                Township of
                                                                                Whitemarsh.
                                      Approximately 1,400             None         +339
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Roberta Avenue.
Sandy Run Tributary No. 1...........  Approximately 150 feet          +237         +236  Township of Abington.
                                       upstream of Johnston
                                       Avenue.
                                      Approximately 2,000             None         +258
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Johnston Avenue.
Sandy Run Tributary No. 1a            Approximately 250 feet          +238         +237  Township of Abington.
 (downstream).                         upstream of Fernwood
                                       Avenue.

                                      Approximately 1,100             None         +243
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Fernwood Avenue.
Southampton Creek...................  At the Pennypack Creek          +176         +177  Borough of Bryn Athyn,
                                       confluence.                                        Township of Lower
                                                                                Moreland, Township of
                                                                                Upper Moreland.
                                      At the downstream side          +184         +187
                                       of County Line Road.
Tributary No. 2 to Pine Run.........  At the Pine Run                 None         +202  Township of Upper
                                       confluence.                                        Dublin.
                                      Approximately 1.1 miles         None         +232
                                       upstream of the Pine
                                       Run confluence.
War Memorial Creek..................  At the Pennypack Creek          +189         +190  Township of Upper
                                       confluence.                                        Moreland.
                                      Approximately 700 feet          +265         +267
                                       upstream of Mineral
                                       Avenue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)
 located at the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. Revised
 FIRMs may also be viewed online at http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata.

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

                                                    ADDRESSES

Borough of Bryn Athyn
Maps are available for inspection at the Borough Hall, 2835 Buck Road, Bryn Athyn, PA 19009.

Borough of Hatboro
Maps are available for inspection at the Borough Hall, 414 South York Road, Hatboro, PA 19040.

Township of Abington
Maps are available for inspection at the Township Building, Engineer's Office, 1176 Old York Road, Abington, PA
 19001.

Township of Horsham
Maps are available for inspection at the Township Municipal Building, 1025 Horsham Road, Horsham, PA 19044.

Township of Lower Moreland
Maps are available for inspection at the Lower Moreland Municipal Building, 640 Red Lion Road, Huntingdon
 Valley, PA 19006.

Township of Springfield
Maps are available for inspection at the Springfield Township Municipal Building, 1510 Paper Mill Road,
 Wyndmoor, PA 19038.

Township of Upper Dublin
Maps are available for inspection at the Upper Dublin Municipal Hall, 801 Loch Alsh Avenue, Fort Washington, PA
 19034.

Township of Upper Moreland
Maps are available for inspection at the Upper Moreland Township Building, 117 Park Avenue, Willow Grove, PA
 19090.

Township of Whitemarsh
Maps are available for inspection at the Whitemarsh Township Administrative Building, 616 Germantown Pike,
 Lafayette Hill, PA 19444.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Date: July 11, 2014.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2014-18101 Filed 8-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P