11096 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2003 / Notices aerosol sprays, emulsifiable concentrates, and impregnated materials ( pet collars). With the exception of the pet collar uses, consumer use of pyriproxyfen typically results in acute and short term intermittent exposures.

D. Cumulative Effects There are no other pesticidal compounds that are structurally related to pyriproxyfen and have similar effects on animals. In consideration of potential cumulative effects of pyriproxyfen and other substances that may have a common mechanism of toxicity, there are currently no available data or other reliable information indicating that any toxic effects produced by pyriproxyfen would be cumulative with those of other chemical compounds. Thus, only the potential risks of pyriproxyfen have been considered in this assessment of aggregate exposure and effects. Valent will submit information for EPA to consider concerning potential cumulative effects of pyriproxyfen consistent with the schedule established by EPA at ( 62 FR 42020 August 4, 1997) and other subsequent EPA publications pursuant to the Food Quality Protection Act.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. Chronic exposure to the overall U. S. population is estimated to be 0.002984 mg/ kg/ bwt day, representing 0.9% of the Reference Dose ( RfD). The results of the chronic dietary exposure assessment demonstrate that estimates of chronic dietary exposure for all existing, pending and proposed uses of pyriproxyfen are well below the chronic RfD of 0.35 mg/ kg/ bwt day. The estimated chronic dietary exposure from food for the overall U. S. population and many non child/ infant subgroups is from 0.002123 to 0.003884 mg/ kg/ bwt day, 0.607 to 1.100% of the RfD. Generally, the Agency has no cause for concern if total residue contribution is less than 100% of the RfD. Valent concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the overall U. S. population or any nonchild infant subgroups from aggregate, chronic dietary exposure to pyriproxyfen residues. 2. Infants and children   i. Safety factor for infants and children. In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of pyriproxyfen, FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional margin of safety, up to 10 fold, for added protection for infants and children in the case of threshold effects unless EPA determines that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. The toxicological data base for evaluating prenatal and postnatal toxicity for pyriproxyfen is complete with respect to current data requirements. There are no special prenatal or postnatal toxicity concerns for infants and children, based on the results of the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies or the 2 generation reproductive toxicity study in rats. Valent concludes that reliable data support use of the standard 100 fold uncertainty factor and that an additional uncertainty factor is not needed for pyriproxyfen to be further protective of infants and children. ii. Chronic dietary exposure and risk infants and children. For the most highly exposed sub population, children 1 to 6 years of age, exposure is calculated to be 0.007438 mg/ kg/ bwt day, or 2.1% of the RfD. Using the conservative exposure assumptions, the percentage of the RfD that will be utilized by chronic dietary ( food only) exposure to residues of pyriproxyfen ranges from 0.002601 mg/ kg/ bwt day for nursing infants, up to 0.007438 mg/ kg/ bwt day for children ( 1 to 6 years of age), 0.743 to 2.125% of the RfD, respectively. EPA generally has no concern for exposures below 100% of the RfD because the RfD represents the level at or below which daily aggregate dietary exposure over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risks to human health. Valent concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate, chronic dietary exposure to pyriproxyfen residues. iii. Drinking water. The average 56   day concentration predicted in the simulated pond water was 0.16 parts per billion ( ppb). Using standard assumptions about body weight and water consumption, the chronic exposure to pyriproxyfen from this drinking water would be 4.57 x 10 6 and 1.6 x 10 5 mg/ kg/ bwt day for adults and children, respectively; 0.0046% of the RfD 0.35 mg/ kg/ day for children. Based on this worse case analysis, the contribution of water to the dietary risk is negligible. iv. Non dietary exposure. Chronic residential post application exposure and risk assessments were conducted to estimate the potential risks from pet collar uses. The risk assessment was conducted using the following assumptions: Application rate of 0.58 mg active ingredient day, average body weight for a 1   6 year old child of 10 kg, the active ingredient dissipates uniformly through 365 days the label instruct to change collar ( once a year), 1% of the active ingredient is available for dermal and inhalation exposure per day assumption from Draft EPA Standard Operating Procedures ( SOPs) for Residential Exposure Assessments ( December 18, 1997). The assessment also assumes an absorption rate of 100%. This is a conservative assumption since the dermal absorption was estimated to be 10%. The estimated chronic term margin of exposure ( MOE) was 61,000 for children, and 430,000 for adults. The risk estimates indicate that potential risks from pet collar uses do not exceed the Agency's level of concern.

F. International Tolerances There are no presently existing Codex maximum residue levels for pyriproxyfen. [ FR Doc. 03   5315 Filed 3   6   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0011; FRL   7290   1]

Sulfentrazone; Notice of Filing Pesticide Petitions to Establish Tolerances for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0011, must be received on or before April 7, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   3194; e mail address: brothers. shaja@ epa. gov.

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 VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 17: 55 Mar 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MRN1. SGM 07MRN1 11097 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2003 / Notices producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in insert appropriate cite to either another unit in the preamble or a section in a rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0011. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the`` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0011 The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0011. In contrast to EPA's VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 17: 55 Mar 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MRN1. SGM 07MRN1 11098 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2003 / Notices electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB) ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0011. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0011. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA has received pesticide petitions proposing the establishment and/ or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the FFDCA, 21 U. S. C. 346a. EPA has determined that these petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408( d)( 2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of these petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 30, 2003. Debra Edwards, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Summaries of Petitions The petitioner's summaries of the pesticide petitions is printed below as required by FFDCA section 408( d)( 3). The summaries of the petitions was prepared by FMC Corporation and represents the view of FMC Corporation. The petitions summaries announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.

Interregional Research Project Number 4 and FMC Corporation PP ( 0E6149, 1E6311, 2E6405, 2E6498, 2E6500, 0F6116, and 2F6391 EPA has received pesticide petitions ( 0E6149, 1E6311, 2E6405, 2E6498, and 2E6500) from Interregional Research Project Number ( IR   4), 681 U. S. Highway # 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902. EPA has also received pesticide petitions ( 0F6116 and 2F6391) from FMC Corporation, Agricultural Products Group, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the FFDCA, 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR 180.498 by establishing tolerances for residues of sulfentrazone ( N 2,4 dichloro 5[ 4( difluoromethyl) 4,5 dihydro 3 methyl 5 oxo 1H 1,2,4 triazol 1 yl] phenylmethanesulfonamide and its metabolites 3 hydroxymethylsulfentrazone ( N 2,4 dichloro 5[ 4 ( difluoromethyl) 4,5 dihydro 3 hydroxymethyl 5 oxo 1H 1,2,4 triazol 1 yl] phenyl] methanesulfonamide) and 3 desmethyl sulfentrazone ( N[ 2,4 dichloro 5[ 4( difluoromethyl) 4,5 dihydro 5 oxo 1H 1,2,4 triazol 1 yl] phenyl] methanesulfonamide) in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: 1. PP 0E6149 proposes the establishment of a tolerance for sunflower, seed at 0.2 parts per million ( ppm). 2. PP 1E6311 proposes the establishment of tolerances for horseradish, roots at 0.2 ppm, cabbage at 0.2 ppm, peppermint, tops at 0.3 ppm, and spearmint, tops at 0.3 ppm. 3. PP 2E6405 proposes the establishment of a tolerance for potato at 0.1 ppm. 4. PP 2E6498 proposes the establishment of a tolerance for bean, lima, succulent at 0.15 ppm. 5. PP 2E6500 proposes the establishment of a tolerance for asparagus at 0.15 ppm. 6. PP 0F6116 proposes the establishment of tolerances for peanut nutmeat and its processed parts at 0.2 ppm, and sugarcane and its processed parts at 0.1 ppm. 7. PP 2F6391 proposes the establishment of tolerances for corn, field, forage at 0.25 ppm, corn, field,

VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 17: 55 Mar 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MRN1. SGM 07MRN1 11099 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2003 / Notices stover at 0.35 ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C at 0.15 ppm. EPA has determined that the petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions. This notice includes summaries of the petitions prepared by FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. The metabolism of sulfentrazone in plants is adequately understood for the existing and proposed tolerances. 2. Analytical method. The proposed analytical method for determining residues of sulfentrazone is hydrolysis followed by gas chromatographic separation. 3. Magnitude of residues. The magnitude of residues is adequately understood for the proposed commodities.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. A battery of acute toxicity studies placed technical sulfentrazone in toxicity categories III and IV. No evidence of sensitization was observed following dermal application in guinea pigs. In an acute neurotoxicity study in rats at gavage doses of 0, 750, or 2,000 milligrams/ kilogram ( mg/ kg), the no observable adverse effect level ( NOAEL) of 250 mg/ kg and the lowest observable adverse effect level ( LOAEL) of 750 mg/ kg were based upon increased incidences of clinical signs, Functional Observation Battery ( FOB) findings, and decreased motor activity which were reversed by day 14 post dose. There was no evidence of neuropathology. 2. Genotoxicity. A reverse gene mutation assay ( salmonella typhimurium) yielded negative results, both with and without metabolic activation. A mouse lymphoma forward gene mutation assay yielded negative results with equivocal results without activation. A mouse micronucleus assay test was negative following intraperitoneal injection of 340 mg/ kg. 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a dermal developmental study in the rat at doses of 0, 5, 25, 50, 100, and 250 mg/ kg/ day, a maternal ( systemic) NOAEL was established at 250 mg/ kg/ day. Significant treatmentrelated increases in the fetal and litter incidences of incompletely ossified lumbar vertebral arches, hypoplastic or wavy ribs, and incompletely ossified or nonossified ischia or pubes occurred at the high dose ( 250 mg/ kg/ day). An additional significant increase in the high dose fetal incidence of variations in the sternebrae ( incompletely ossified or unossified) was not judged to be treatment related. At 250 mg/ kg/ day, the mean numbers of thoracic vertebral and rib ossification sites were significantly decreased, a high dose effect of treatment with sulfentrazone consistent with the significant treatment related hypoplasia observed in the skeletal evaluation of the ribs. Therefore, the developmental ( fetal) LOAEL is 250 mg/ kg/ day based on decreased fetal body weight; increased incidences of fetal variations: Hypoplastic or wavy ribs, incompletely ossified lumbar vertebral arches, and incompletely ossified ischia or pubes; and reduced number of thoracic vertebral and rib ossification sites. The developmental ( fetal) NOAEL is 100 mg/ kg/ day. A developmental toxicity study in rabbits was conducted at gavage dose levels of 0, 100, 250, or 375 mg/ kg/ day. Treatment related incidences of decreased feces and hematuria were noted at 250 mg/ kg/ day or greater. In addition, at the 375 mg/ kg/ day dose level, 5 rabbits aborted. Significant reductions in mean body weight change were observed for the dosing period ( GD 7   19) and for the study duration ( GD 0   29, both before and after adjustment for gravid uterine weight) at the 250 and 375 mg/ kg/ day dose levels. Therefore, the maternal ( systemic) LOAEL is 250 mg/ kg/ day, based upon increased abortions, clinical signs ( hematuria and decreased feces), and reduced body weight gain. The maternal ( systemic) NOAEL is 100 mg/ kg/ day. Skeletal evaluation in fetuses revealed doserelated and treatment related findings at the 375 mg/ kg/ day dose level. These included significant increases in both the fetal and litter incidences of fused caudal vertebrae ( a malformation) and of partially fused nasal bones ( a variation). In addition, at 375 mg/ kg/ day, significant treatment related reductions in ossification site averages were observed for metacarpals and both forepaw and hindpaw phalanges. Therefore, the developmental ( fetal) LOAEL is 250 mg/ kg/ day, based upon increased resorptions, decreased live fetuses per litter, and decreased fetal weight. The developmental ( fetal) NOAEL is 100 mg/ kg/ day. A 2   generation reproduction study in the rat at dietary levels of 14, 33, or 46 mg/ kg/ day in males and 16, 40, or 56 mg/ kg/ day in females established a NOAEL for systemic and reproductive/ developmental parameters of 14 mg/ kg/ day for males and 16 mg/ kg/ day for females. The LOAEL for systemic and reproductive/ development parameters was 33 mg/ kg/ day for males and 40 mg/ kg/ day for females. Systemic effects were comprised of decreased body weight gains, while reproductive/ developmental effect at the LOAEL included degeneration and/ or atrophy in the testes, with epididymal sperm deficits, in the second ( F1) generation males. Male fertility in the F1 generation was reduced at higher doses; litter size, pup survival, and pup body weight for both generations were also effected at higher doses. 4. Subchronic toxicity. A 90   day subchronic toxicity study was conducted in rats, with dietary intake levels of 0, 3.3, 6.7, 19.9, 65.8, 199.3, or 534.9 mg/ kg/ day for males and 0, 4, 7.7, 23.1, 78.1, 230.5, or 404.3 mg/ kg/ day for females respectively. NOAELs of 19.9 mg/ kg/ day in males and 23.1 mg/ kg/ day in females were based on clinical anemia. A 90   day subchronic feeding study was conducted in mice by dietary admix at doses of 0, 10.3, 17.8, 60.0, 108.4, or 194.4 mg/ kg/ day for males and 0, 13.9, 29.0, 79.8, 143.6, or 257.0 mg/ kg/ day for females, respectively. NOAELs of 60 mg/ kg/ day ( males) and 79.8 mg/ kg/ day ( females) were based on decreases in body weights and/ or gains; decreased erythrocytes, hemoglobin ( Hgb) and hematocrit ( HCT) values; and splenic microscopic pathology. In a 90   day subchronic feeding study in dogs administered by dietary admix at doses of 0, 10, 28, or 57 mg/ kg/ day for males and 0, 10, 28, or 73 mg/ kg/ day for females, a NOAEL of 28 mg/ kg/ day was determined for both males and females based on decreases in Hgb and HCT, elevated alkaline phosphatase levels, increased liver weights and microscopic liver as well as splenic changes. A 90   day subchronic neurotoxicity study in the rat was conducted at dietary levels of 30, 150, or 265 mg/ kg/ day in males, and 37, 180, or 292 mg/ kg/ day in females, with a NOAEL of 30 mg/ kg/ day in males and 37 mg/ kg/ day in females. The LOAEL was 150 mg/ kg/ day for males and 180 mg/ kg/ day for females based on increased incidences of clinical signs, decreased body weights, body weight gains, and food consumption in females and increased motor activity in females at week 13. There were no neurohistopathological effects on the peripheral or central nervous system. 5. Chronic toxicity. A 12   month feeding study in dogs was dosed at levels of 0.0, 24.9, or 61.2 mg/ kg/ day for male dogs and 0.0, 10.4, 29.6, or 61.9 VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 17: 55 Mar 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MRN1. SGM 07MRN1 11100 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 45 / Friday, March 7, 2003 / Notices mg/ kg/ day for female dogs in the control through high dose groups, respectively, with a NOAEL of 24.9 mg/ kg/ day for males and 29.6 mg/ kg/ day for females based on hematology effects and microscopic liver changes. An 18   month feeding/ carcinogenicity study in mice was conducted with dietary intake of 0, 46.6, 93.9, 160.5, or 337.6 mg/ kg/ day for males and 0, 58.0, 116.9, 198.0, or 407.1 mg/ kg/ day for females. A NOAEL of 93.9 mg/ kg/ day in males and 116.9 mg/ kg/ day in females was based on decreases in Hgb and HCT. There were no treatment related increases in tumors of any kind observed at any dose level. In a 24   month chronic feeding/ carcinogenicity study in rats at dietary doses of 0, 24.3, 40.0, 82.8, or 123.5 mg/ kg/ day for males and 20.0, 36.4, 67.0, or 124.7 mg/ kg/ day for females, an overall NOAEL of 40.0 mg/ kg/ day in males and 36.4 mg/ kg/ day in females was based on hematology effects and reduced body weights. There was no evidence of a carcinogenic response. 6. Animal metabolism. A metabolism study in rats indicated that approximately 84 to 104% of the orally administered dose of sulfentrazone was excreted in the urine, and that the pooled urinary radioactivity consisted almost entirely of 3 hydroxymethyl sulfentrazone. Pooled fecal radioactivity showed that the major metabolite consisted of 3 hydroxymethylsulfentrazone ( 1.26 to 2.55% of the administered dose). The proposed metabolic pathway appeared to be conversion of the parent compound mainly to 3 hydroxymethylsulfentrazone ( excreted in urine and feces). 7. Endocrine disruption. An evaluation of the potential effects on the endocrine systems of mammals has not been determined; however, no evidence of such effects were reported in the chronic or reproductive toxicology studies described above. There was no observed pathology of the endocrine organs in these studies. There is no evidence at this time that sulfentrazone causes endocrine effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure   i. Food. A Tier 3 short term exposure analysis has been performed to estimate the exposure for all adults, adult females, and toddlers ( 3 to 4 years of age) in the U. S. population for these raw commodities and processed commodities. This analysis utilized Novigen's ( Novigen Sciences, Inc.) Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEM) software; field trial data for registered and pending crop uses; percent crop treated information; and consumption data from the United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA) Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals ( CSFIIs), conducted from 1994   1996. ii. Drinking water. A Tier 1 short term drinking water exposure assessment was conducted to determine exposure risk of sulfentrazone residues from consumption of water. This analysis was performed utilizing EPA's Standard Operating Procedure ( SOP) for Drinking Water Exposure Risk Assessments ( DUS EPA, 1997b), the absorbed ( systemic) aggregate exposure estimates, and water data from FMC Corporation ground water study conducted in North Carolina. 2. Non dietary exposure. The primary source for human non dietary exposure to sulfentrazone will be from postapplication exposure to treated residential turf grass. The routes of sulfentrazone exposure were dermal post application exposure for adults and toddlers, and post application incidental ingestion of sulfentrazone due to the hand to mouth behavior of toddlers. A worst case short term nondietary exposure analysis was conducted using algorithms and default factors published in EPA's SOPs for Residential Exposure Assessments.

D. Cumulative Effects Cumulative exposure to substances with common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency considers `` available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide residue and `` other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' In the case of sulfentrazone, EPA has determined that it does not have the capability to apply the information in its files to a resolution of common mechanism issues in a manner that would be useful in a risk assessment. This tolerance determination therefore does not take into account common mechanism issues. The Agency will reexamine the tolerances for sulfentrazone, if reexamination is appropriate, after the Agency has determined how to apply common mechanism issues to its pesticide risk assessments.

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. The absorbed ( systemic) aggregate exposure estimates for all adults, and adult females were found to be 0.0015 mg/ kg/ day and 0.0017 mg/ kg/ day, respectively. The acute dietary ( 99.9%), non dietary, and aggregate margin of exposure ( MOE) for all adults were found to be 12,353, 7,571, and 6,726 respectively. The acute dietary ( 99.9%), non dietary and aggregate MOE for adult females were 22,857, 6,327, and 5,717 respectively. The MOE from the limited potential for short term exposure from residential uses was > 1,000. Based on these assessments, it can be concluded that there is reasonable certainty of no harm to the U. S. population from exposure to sulfentrazone. 2. Infants and children. The absorbed ( systemic) aggregate exposure estimates for toddlers were found to be 0.0054 mg/ kg/ day. The acute dietary ( 99.9%), non dietary, and aggregate MOE for toddlers were found to be 6,721, 2,048, and 1,869 respectively. The MOE from the limited potential for short term exposure from residential uses was > 1,000. Based on these assessments, it can be concluded that there is reasonable certainty of no harm to infants and children from exposure to sulfentrazone. The calculated drinking water levels of concern for all adults, and adult females were estimated to be 298 parts per billion ( ppb), 250 ppb, respectively. These values exceed the maximum water monitoring residue of 42 ppb ( from the North Carolina study). Therefore, the data indicate a low risk potential due to the aggregate ( food, water and residential) exposures to sulfentrazone residues.

F. International Tolerances There are no Codex Alimentarius Commission ( Codex) maximum residue levels for sulfentrazone. [ FR Doc. 03   5319 Filed 3   6   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0350; FRL   7285   8]

Notice of Filing a Pesticide Petition to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2002   0350, must be received on or before April 7, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or VerDate Dec< 13> 2002 17: 55 Mar 06, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 07MRN1. SGM 07MRN1


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4965-4967]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Solicitation of Proposals for Designation of Beyond Traffic
Innovation Centers

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to designate Beyond Traffic Innovation
Centers.

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

SUMMARY: Beyond Traffic is the Department of Transportation's (``DOT''
or the ``Department'') draft 30-year framework for the future (the full
report can be found here: https://www.transportation.gov/BeyondTraffic). It lays out key trends that will affect the future of
our transportation system. To further this understanding, the DOT is
requesting proposals from applicants to form an initial network of
multiple centers, focused--through academic activities and programs--on
delivering solutions to the challenges outlined in Beyond Traffic.
These entities will be designated as ``USDOT Beyond Traffic Innovation
Centers'' and will serve as thought leaders responsible for continuing
the conversation surrounding the future of transportation. USDOT Beyond
Traffic Innovation Center activities could include identifying possible
solutions in their megaregion (Beyond Traffic, p. 25), including but
not limited to: Evaluating and researching new technologies relevant to
tackling transportation challenges with the megaregion, identification
and development of training approaches for the megaregion's future
transportation workforce, and convening practitioners, public and
private leaders within the megaregion to help identify specific actions
that can be taken in the megaregion to address its challenges over the
30 years.

DATES: Proposals must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. EST on December 21,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Final proposals must not exceed 4 pages in length, and must
be submitted electronically to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning
this notice, please contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department is requesting applications to
be designated as a USDOT Beyond Traffic Innovation Center. Read this
notice in its entirety so that you have all the information you need to
determine whether you would like to submit a proposal.
    Description: In the enabling legislation that established the DOT,
the Secretary of Transportation is vested with the responsibility to
report on current and future conditions of our transportation system.
With the Nation's transportation system experiencing repeated impacts
due to population growth, changes in climate, a stressed freight
network, and inaction to address these impacts, such a discourse could
not come at a more crucial time. Beyond Traffic 2045: Trends and
Choices has been developed by a team of Departmental experts, with
input from the public, to conduct a comprehensive examination of our
Nation's transportation system. In the fall of

2015, Secretary Foxx and his team travelled to eleven emerging
megaregions to solicit feedback on the draft report. Specifically,
communities provided feedback on the gaps in opportunity exacerbated by
disparities in transportation access and past infrastructure decisions.
The designated USDOT Beyond Traffic Innovation Centers will help to
continue this conversation in their respective megaregions, including,
but not limited to: Evaluating and researching new technologies
relevant to tackling transportation challenges with the megaregion,
identification and development of training approaches for the
megaregion's future transportation workforce, and convening
practitioners, public and private leaders with the megaregion to help
identify specific actions that can be taken in the megaregion to
address its challenges over the 30 years. For this purpose, the DOT is
seeking applications from eligible entities that would like to be
designated as a USDOT Beyond Traffic Innovation Center. The Centers
will form a community of forward-thinking researchers, students, and
thought leaders who can help drive our Nation's transportation systems
forward by addressing the following questions:
     How will we move? How will we build a transportation
system to accommodate a growing population and changing travel
patterns?
     How will we move things? How will we reduce freight
chokepoints that drive up the cost of owning a business?
     How will we move better? How will we knock down barriers
to new technologies that promise to make travel safer and more
convenient?
     How will we adapt? How will we make our infrastructure
resilient to more frequent catastrophic weather events?
     How will we grow opportunity for all Americans?
     How will we align decisions and dollars, and invest the
trillions of dollars our transportation system needs in the smartest
way possible?

USDOT Beyond Traffic Innovation Centers will be recognized by the
Department of Transportation as forward-thinking and influential
institutions that are capable of driving solutions to the challenges
identified in Beyond Traffic, through research, curriculum, outreach,
and other activities.
    Designation Decisions: The Secretary of Transportation will make
all designations under this notice. A designation as a USDOT Beyond
Traffic Innovation Center is not an award of Federal financial
assistance.
    Eligibility Information: The following entities are eligible for
designation as a USDOT Beyond Traffic Innovation Center. Individuals
are not eligible for designation under this notice. The Department
actively encourages the inclusion of minority-serving institutions.
Eligible entities include:
     U.S. non-profit institutions of higher education as
defined under 20 U.S.C. 1001(a). Non-profit institutions of higher
education may include qualifying two-year institutions that meet the
requirements of 20 U.S.C. 1001(a). This includes existing and future
University Transportation Centers and applicants.
     Non-profit organizations described under section 501(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC) and exempt from tax under
section 501(a) of such code.
    Selection Criteria: The Secretary of Transportation will make all
designations. Selections will be based on the applicant's submittal in
response to the information required immediately below:
    Applications must include the following:
     Commitment to continuing the conversation launched by
Beyond Traffic, as demonstrated through a clear action plan for
furthering these ideas, such as transportation solutions for their
megaregion, including, but not limited to: Evaluating and researching
new technologies relevant to tackling transportation challenges with
the megaregion, identification and development of training approaches
for the megaregion's future transportation workforce, and convening
practitioners, public and private leaders with the megaregion to help
identify specific actions that can be taken in the megaregion to
address its challenges over the 30 years. A designated Beyond Traffic
Coordinator who will commit to participating in future events related
to megaregion development with USDOT must be named as part of the
application.
    DOT will also consider the following:
     The extent to which the applicant demonstrates the
commitment outlined above and administers an established academic or
outreach program.
     The capability of the applicant to provide leadership in
making national and regional contributions to the conversation around
the future of our transportation system.
     The applicant's ability and willingness to maintain a
working relationship with the Department's relevant research program
offices. The application should describe this proposed relationship,
including aspects such as potential participation in conferences,
meetings, joint research efforts, and submission of activity reports to
the DOT on a routine basis.
     The extent to which the State or locality in which the
applicant is located can provide applicable solutions for the broader
region and surrounding corridor for improved mobility through the
advancement of emerging technologies.
     The demonstrated research and extension resources
available to the applicant for carrying out activities and programs as
they relate to Beyond Traffic.
    Review And Selection Process: DOT will review all applications
received by the deadline. The designation review and selection process
consists of two phases: Eligibility & Technical Review and Senior
Review. In the Eligibility & Technical Review phase, DOT staff will (1)
ensure that the applicant is eligible (see Eligibility Information
section) and (2) assess the applicant's ability to meet the mandatory
criteria and one or more of the other Selection Criteria enumerated
above. In the Senior Review phase, which includes senior leadership
from DOT, specific applications may be advanced to the Secretary for
selection. In making recommendations, the Senior Review team may seek
to ensure the inclusion of minority-serving institutions. The Secretary
may select from applications advanced by the Senior Review team for
designations.
    Designation Notice: The Secretary will announce designations by
posting a list of USDOT Beyond Traffic Innovation Centers at
www.transportation.gov/BeyondTraffic. The Department anticipates that
the selection of the initial USDOT Beyond Traffic Innovation Centers
will be completed during the first quarter of calendar year 2017. The
Department may make additional designations on an annual basis or as
deemed appropriate.
    Designation Agency Contacts: For further information concerning
this notice, please contact the Department via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Other Information: All information submitted as part of or in
support of any application shall use publicly available data or data
that can be made public and methodologies that are accepted by industry
practice and standards, to the extent possible. If the application
includes information you consider to be a trade secret or confidential
commercial or financial information, the applicant should do the
following: (1) Note on the front cover that the submission ``Contains
Confidential Business Information (CBI)''; (2) mark each affected page
``CBI''; and (3)

highlight or otherwise denote the CBI portions. DOT protects such
information from disclosure to the extent allowed under applicable law.
In the event DOT receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
for the information, DOT will follow the procedures described in its
FOIA regulations at 49 CFR 7.17. Only information that is ultimately
determined to be confidential under that procedure will be exempt from
disclosure under FOIA.

    Dated: December 6, 2016.
Anthony R. Foxx,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-00824 Filed 1-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: January 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 7)]
[Notices]
[Page 1781-1782]
[DOCID:fr11ja06-63]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53051; File No. SR-MSRB-2005-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Amendments to Administrative Rules (Rules A-3(f) and
A-6(c)) Relating to Board Member Compensation

January 4, 2006.
    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 December 16, 2005, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``MSRB'' or ``Board''), filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the MSRB. The MSRB has filed the proposal pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
consisting of amendments to Rules A-3(f) and A-6(c) relating to Board
member compensation. The text of the proposed rule change is available
on the MSRB's Web site (http://www.msrb.org), at the MSRB's principal

office, 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 MSRB 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 MSRB 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 MSRB has been reviewing its Administrative Rules (``A-Rules'')
to make sure that they are consistent with Virginia law (where the MSRB
is incorporated) and current good corporate governance practices. Rule
A-3(f), on compensation and expenses, and Rule A-6(c), on committees of
the Board, both pertain to Board member compensation practices. These
two provisions are somewhat outdated and do not allow the Board
appropriate administrative flexibility to implement improved
compensation and reimbursement practices consistent with the Board's
corporate governance practices. To accomplish this goal, the Board
determined that Rule A-6(c) should be deleted and Rule A-3(f) should be
modeled on a provision found in the NASD and Nasdaq By-Laws \5\ such
that the Board has a general grant of authority to provide for
reasonable compensation and/or reimbursement to Board and committee
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NASD By-Law Sec. 9.1, on Compensation of Board, Council,
and Committee Members (Amended by SR-NASD-97-71 eff. Jan 15, 1998.);
and Nasdaq By-Law Sec. 6.1, on Compensation of Board, Council, and
Committee Members (Amended by SR-NASD-97-71 eff. Jan 15, 1998.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
section 15B(b)(2)(I) of the Act,\6\ which provides that MSRB rules
shall ``provide for the operation and administration of the Board,
including the selection of a Chairman from among the members of the
Board, the compensation of the members of the Board, and the
appointment and compensation of such employees, attorneys, and
consultants as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the Board's
functions under this section.'' \7\ The MSRB believes that the proposed
rule change is consistent with these provisions in that it relates to
the operation and administration of the Board and the compensation of
members of the Board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(I).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act since it would apply solely to
internal operational and administrative matters.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder \9\ because
it is concerned solely with the administration of the MSRB. At any time
within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
    \10\ See section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-MSRB-2005-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2005-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements

with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
MSRB. 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-
MSRB-2005-17 and should be submitted on or before February 1, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-135 Filed 1-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31454-31457]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12394]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0257]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hudson River, Troy and Green
Island, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to modify the operating schedule that
governs the highway bridge (Troy Green Island) across the Hudson River,
mile 152.7, between Troy and Green Island, New York. The owner of the
bridge, New York State Department of Transportation, requested that a
twenty four hour advance notice be given for bridge openings. In
addition, we are removing the regulations for the 112th Street Bridge,
mile 155.4, between Troy and Cohoes which has been converted to a fixed
bridge. It is expected that this change to the regulations would
provide relief to the bridge owner from crewing the bridge while
continuing to meet the reasonable needs of navigation as well as remove
obsolete regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-

2013-0257 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
four methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District Bridge Program, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Tables of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Sec.  Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2013-0257), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail or hand delivery,
but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online
via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the
Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax,
hand delivery, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having
been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket
Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-2013-0257 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail
and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2013-0257) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit either the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of
Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of
Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why one would be beneficial. If we determine
that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and
place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The highway bridge (Troy Green Island), at mile 152.7, across the
Hudson River, between Troy and Green Island, New York, has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 29 feet at mean high water and 34
feet at mean low water. The waterway users are predominantly seasonal
recreational vessels, several tour boats and a U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers vessel.
    The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR
117.791(e), which require the bridge to operate as follows: From April
1 through December 15, the draw shall open on signal from 9 a.m. to 4
p.m.; except that, the draw need not open from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m., unless
notice is given before 4:30 p.m. of the time the vessel is expected to
pass, and need not open from 7 a.m., to 9 a.m., and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.
From December 16 through March 31, the draw need not open.
    The Coast Guard received a request from the owner of the bridge,
New York State Department of Transportation, to change the drawbridge
operation regulations. The owner of the bridge proposes to open the
bridge as follows: From April 1 through December 15, the draw shall
open on signal after at least a twenty four hour notice is given and
from December 16 through March 31, the draw need not open for the
passage of vessel traffic.
    The bridge opens approximately 40 times a year on average between
April and December and there are no openings in the winter months when
the waterway is normally frozen.
    As a result of the above information the Coast Guard believes it is
reasonable for the bridge owner to operate the bridge after a twenty
four hour advance notice April 1 through December 15.
    In addition, we are removing the drawbridge operation regulations
for the 112th Street Bridge between Troy and Cohoes, 33 CFR 117.791(f),
which was converted to a fixed bridge in 1997.

 C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to revise 33 CFR 117.791(e), to allow the
draw to open after a twenty four hour advance notice is given from
April 1 through December 15 and the draw need not open for vessel
traffic from December 16 through March 31. In addition we are removing
the drawbridge operation regulations for the 112th Street Bridge
between Troy and Cohoes which was converted to a fixed bridge.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866, or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    We consider this rule as not being a significant regulatory action
because the bridge will continue to open for the passage of all vessel
traffic, April 1 through December 15, after a twenty four hour notice
is given.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
needing to transit through the bridge.
    This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The
bridge will continue to open for all vessel traffic after a 24 hour
advance notice is given.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical

exclusion determination are not required for this rule. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of significant
environmental impact from the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  33 CFR 117.791 paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.791  Hudson River.

* * * * *
    (e) The draw of the highway bridge (Troy Green Island), mile 152.7,
across the Hudson River between Troy and Green Island, operates as
follows:
    (1) From April 1 through December 15 the draw shall open on signal
if at least a twenty four hour advance notice is given by calling the
number posted at the bridge.
    (2) From December 16 through March 31, the draw need not open for
the passage of vessel traffic.
0
3. In Sec.  117.791, remove paragraph (f).

    Dated: May 10, 2013.
V.B. Gifford, Jr.,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, First Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2013-12394 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 54021-54022]
[DOCID:fr21se07-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-447-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Application

September 17, 2007.
    Take notice that on September 6, 2007, Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, filed in
Docket No. CP07-447-000 an application pursuant to sections 7(b) and
7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for (1) Permission and approval to
abandon in place certain compression facilities at Northern's Ogden
compressor station in Boone County, Iowa; and (2) construct, modify,
and operate certain compression facilities at Northern's Redfield
compressor station in Dallas County, Iowa, all as more fully set forth
in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to
public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov
 using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,

(202) 502-8659.
    Northern proposes to abandon in place two horizontal compressor
units with a total of 3,200 Horsepower (HP) installed at the Ogden
compressor station in 1951. Northern states that it also would install
a newer 1,400 HP compressor unit \1\ at the Redfield compressor station
to replace the abandoned compressor units at the Ogden compressor
station. Northern asserts that its proposed abandonment and replacement
of compressor units would provide cost savings by reusing an existing
unit rather than acquiring a new unit; potential fuel savings; increase
operating effectiveness; increase operational reliability; and decrease
environmental impact by using lower horsepower, as well as the
differences between the Ogden horizontal units and the Sublette
compressor unit. Northern estimates that it would spend $4,332,286 for
this proposal with internally generated funds. Northern states that its
proposed facilities would enable it to continue to meet existing
customers' requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Northern would use a previously abandoned 1,400 HP
compressor unit from its Sublette compressor station rather than
acquiring a new compressor unit to install at the Redfield
compressor station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Michael T. Loeffler, Senior Director of Certificates and External
Affairs for Northern, 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Bret Fritch, Senior Regulatory Analyst, at (402)
398-7140.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the

Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing''
link.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 9, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-18658 Filed 9-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P