[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33741-33744]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0358]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Tracey/Thompson Wedding, Lake Erie, Catawba Island,
OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a temporary safety zone
on Lake Erie, Catawba Island, Ohio. This temporary safety zone is
intended to restrict vessels from portions of Lake Erie during the
Tracey/Thompson Wedding Fireworks. This temporary safety zone is
necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated
with fireworks displays.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0358 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: 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.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail MST3 Peter Uselton, Response Department, Marine
Safety Unit Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0358), 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 (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail or

hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. A comment
submitted online via http://www.regulations.gov will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when the comment is successfully
transmitted; a comment submitted via fax, hand delivery, or mail, will
be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when the
comment is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend
that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or
a telephone 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,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2010-0358'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. 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 comments 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.

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,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0358'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

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).

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 you believe a public meeting 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.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact MST3 Peter Uselton, Response Department, Marine Safety Unit
Toledo at the telephone number or e-mail address indicated under the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

Basis and Purpose

    This temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
vessels and the public from hazards associated with a fireworks
display. Such hazards include obstructions to the waterway that may
cause marine casualties and the explosive danger of fireworks and
debris falling into the water that may cause death or serious bodily
harm. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel movement around the
location of the launch platform will help ensure the safety of persons
and property at these events and help minimize the associated risks.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
encompassing all waters of Lake Erie within a 300-yard radius of the
fireworks launch site located at position 41[deg]34'20'' N,
082[deg]51'18'' W. All geographic coordinates are North American Datum
of 1983 (NAD 83).
    A temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
spectators and vessels during the setup, loading, and launching of the
Tracey/Thompson Wedding Fireworks Display. The fireworks display will
occur between 09:30 p.m. and 10 p.m., August 13, 2010.
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on scene patrol
personnel. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or
his designated on scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    The Coast Guard expects the temporary final rule will be effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because
delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest
due to the need to protect the public from the dangers associated with
the fireworks display.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

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,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this proposed regulation restricts access to the safety
zone, the effect of the rule will not be significant because: the
minimal time that vessels will be restricted from the zone and the zone
is an area where the Coast Guard expects minimal adverse impact to
mariners from the zone's activation.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. 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 rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in the above portion of Lake Erie near Catawba Island, OH
between 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m. on August 13, 2010.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be in effect for approximately 30 minutes during the
fireworks display. In the

event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial
vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port Detroit to
transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard will give notice to
the public via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners that the regulation is in
effect. Additionally, the COTP will suspend enforcement of the safety
zone if the event for which the zone is established ends earlier than
the expected time.
    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.

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 so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
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 MST3 Peter
Uselton, Response Department, Marine Safety Unit Toledo, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.

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).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

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 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

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.

Protection of Children

    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.

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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-1 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category
of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. A preliminary environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves the
establishment of a temporary safety zone. Based on our preliminary
determination, there are no factors in this case that would limit the
use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction.
Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded,
under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. Because this event establishes a safety
zone, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction applies.
    We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery
of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0358 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0358  Safety Zone; Tracey/Thompson Wedding, Lake Erie,
Catawba Island, OH

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All
waters of Lake Erie within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks launch
site located at position 41[deg]34'20'' N, 082[deg]51'18'' W. All
geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective Period. This regulation is effective from 9:30 p.m.
through 10 p.m. on August 13, 2010. The safety zone will be enforced
from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on August 13, 2010.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Detroit, or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. The on-
scene representative of the Captain of the Port will be aboard either a
Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The Captain of the Port or
his designated on scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all
directions given to them by the Captain of the Port or his on-scene
representative.

    Dated: May 24, 2010.
E.J. Marohn,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2010-14295 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86121-86123]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27221]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD23-6-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725A(1D) and
FERC-725Z); Comment Request; Revision

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collections and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved
information collections, FERC-725A(1D) (Mandatory Reliability Standards
for the Bulk-Power System TOP-003-6.1) and FERC-725Z (Mandatory
Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System IRO-010-5 Reliability
Standards).

DATES: Comments on the collections of information are due February 12,
2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket
No. RD23-6-000) by one of the following methods:
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format. Electronic filing through http://www.ferc.gov, is preferred.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] Hand (including courier) Delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov. Please
ensure each comment refers to the appropriate collection. For user
assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at
[email protected], or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Sonneman may be reached by email
at [email protected], telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Titles: FERC-725Z, Mandatory Reliability Standards: IRO Reliability
Standards, and FERC-725A(1D), Mandatory Reliability Standards for the
Bulk-Power System Reliability Standards (TOP-003-6.1).
    Action: Proposed Changes to Collections.
    OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0276 (FERC-725Z); 1902-0324 (FERC-725A(1D)).
    Type of Request: Modification of the FERC-725Z and FERC-725A(1D)
information collection requirements.
    Abstract: On 9/21/2023, the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) filed a petition on the proposed Modifications to
Reliability Standards IRO-010 and TOP-003 to improve the approaches
used for data and information specification and exchange by, among
other things: (i) clarifying that specifications include both data and
information; (ii) requiring the identification of the applicable entity
that is required to respond to the request for the specification; (iii)
including a data conflict resolution provision within the data
specification requirement; (iv) clarifying that specifications should
include protocols to address periodicity, performance criterion, and
update and correction mechanisms; and (v) consolidating the format and
security protocols within the data specification requirements.
    The proposed Modifications to FERC-725Z for IRO-010-5 and FERC-
725A(1D) for TOP-003-6.1, address recommendations arising from the SER
Phase 2 Team by clarifying, consolidating, and improving approaches for
data and information specification and exchange. The proposed revisions
are intended to advance the reliability of the Bulk-Power System
(``BPS'') by ensuring that Registered Entities with operational
responsibilities are able to request and receive the data and
information necessary to support Operational

Planning Analysis, Real-time Assessments, Real-time monitoring, and
Balancing Authority analysis functions in an optimal manner.
    The proposed modifications would advance the reliability of the BPS
by facilitating improved coordination of information and data sharing,
thus allowing the entities responsible for the reliable operation of
the BPS to request and receive data and information necessary to
support Operational Planning Analysis, Real-time Assessments, Real-time
monitoring, and Balancing Authority analysis functions in an optimal
manner.
    The changes being implemented primarily affect the reliability
coordinator in IRO-010-5 and the transmission operator and balancing
authority in TOP-003-6.1 with other entities have much lower burden.
Additionally, the burden is expected to only be needed for years 1 and
2 as the burden is only focused on procedures for sharing data and
moving details from one requirement to another within the same
standard. After year two with procedures fully in place there are no
expectations for additional burden to continue as documents will be in
place. The existing burden will remain the same until updated further
for these reliability standards.
    These Standards, FERC-725A(1D) (Temporary placeholder for FERC-
725A) for TOP-003-6.1, FERC-725Z for IRO-010-5, which are all currently
approved information collections.
    Type of Respondents: NERC-registered entities including generator
owner, generator operator, reliability coordinator, balancing
authorities, distribution provider, transmission owner, and
transmission operators.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In subsequent portions of this notice, the following
acronyms will be used: DP = Distribution Provider, BA = Balancing
Authority, RC = Reliability Coordinator, TOP = Transmission Owner,
GO = Generator Owner, GOP = Generator Operator, TOP = Transmission
Operator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimate of Annual Burden: \2\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden and cost for the information collections as:
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Burden'' is defined as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.
    \3\ https://www.nerc.com/FilingsOrders/us/NERC%20Filings%20to%20FERC%20DL/Petition%20for%20Approval%20of%20IRO-010%20and%20TOP-003_final.pdf.

Reliability Standard IRO-010-5 (Reliability Coordinator Data
Specification and Collection)
Reliability Standard TOP-003-6.1 (Transmission Operator and Balancing
Authority Data and Information Specification and Collection)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Values represent unique U.S. entities as based on the NERC
compliance registry information as of September 22, 2023.
    \5\ The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) is a
combination based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), as of
2023, for 75% of the average of an Electrical Engineer (17-2071)
$77.29/hr., 77.29 x .75 = 57.9675 ($57.97-rounded) ($57.97/hour) and
25% of an Information and Record Clerk (43-4199) $39.58/hr, $39.58 x
.25% = 9.895 ($9.90 rounded) ($9.90/hour), for a total ($57.97 +
$9.90 = $67.87/hour).

             TOP-003-6.1--Transmission Operator and Balancing Authority Data and Information Specification and Collection for Years 1 and 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Annual  number
                                    Number of      of  responses  Annual  number of    Average burden  hours &       Total annual burden hours & cost
                                 respondents \4\  per respondent       responses         cost per  response
Type of entity                               (1)             (2)    (1) * (2) = (3)  (4) \5\...................  (3) * (4) = (5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        FERC-725A(1D), OMB Control No. 1902-0324
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOP...........................               166               1                166  80 hrs.; $5,429.60........  13,280 hrs.; $901,313.60.
BA............................                98               1                 98  80 hrs.; $5,429.60........  7,840 hrs.; $532,100.80.
TO............................               323               1                323  8 hrs.; $542.96...........  2,584 hrs.; $175,376.08.
GOP...........................             1,002               1              1,002  8 hrs.; $542.96...........  8,016 hrs.; $544,045.92.
GO............................             1,164               1              1,164  8 hrs.; $542.96...........  9,312 hrs.; $632,005.44.
DP............................               301               1                301  8 hrs.; $542.96...........  2,408 hrs.; $163,430.96.
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-725A(1D) for TOP-003-6.1   ................  ..............  .................  ..........................  43,440 hrs.; $2,948,272.80.
 Total Years 1 & 2.
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-725A(1D) for TOP-003-6.1   ................  ..............  .................  ..........................  No Change to existing burden.
 Total Year 3 and beyond.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         IRO-010-5--Reliability Coordinator Data and Information Specification and Collection for Years 1 and 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Annual  number
                                    Number of      of  responses   Total  number of  Average burden  & cost per     Total annual burden  hours & total
                                 respondents \6\  per respondent      responses                response                        annual cost
Type of entity                               (1)             (2)    (1) * (2) = (3)  (4) \7\...................  (3) * (4) = (5)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          FERC-725Z, OMB Control No. 1902-0276
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RC............................                12               1                 12  80 hrs.; $5,429.60........  960 hrs.; $65,155.20.
BA............................                98               1                 98  8 hrs.; $542.96...........  784 hrs.; $53,210.08.
GO............................             1,164               1              1,164  8 hrs.; $542.96...........  9,312 hrs.; $632,005.44.
GOP...........................             1,002               1              1,002  8 hrs.; $542.96...........  8,016 hrs.; $544,045.92.
TOP...........................               166               1                166  8 hrs.; $542.96...........  1,328 hrs.; $90,131.36.
TO............................               323               1                323  8 hrs.; $542.96...........  2,584 hrs.; $175,376.08.
DP............................               301               1                301  8 hrs.; $542.96...........  2,408 hrs.; $163,430.96.
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-725Z for IRO-010-5 Total   ................  ..............  .................  ..........................  25,392 hrs.; $1,723,355.04.
 Years 1 & 2.
                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FERC-725Z for IRO-010-5 Total   ................  ..............  .................  ..........................  No Change to existing burden.
 Year 3 and beyond.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total annual estimated burden and cost for the FERC-725A(1D)
information collection is 43,440 hours and $2,948,272.80. FERC 725Z is
25,392 hours and $1,723,355.04 respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Values represent unique U.S. entities as based on the NERC
compliance registry information as of September 22, 2023.
    \7\ The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) is a
combination based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), as of
2022, for 75% of the average of an Electrical Engineer (17-2071)
$77.29/hr., 77.29 x .75 = 57.9675 ($57.97-rounded) ($57.97/hour) and
25% of an Information and Record Clerk (43-4199) $39.58/hr, $39.58 x
.25% = 9.895 ($9.90 rounded) ($9.90/hour), for a total ($57.97 +
$9.90 = $67.87/hour).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burdens and costs of the collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: December 6, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27221 Filed 12-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46394-46401]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19951]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0416; FRL-9976-65]

Afidopyropen; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
afidopyropen, [(3S,4R,4aR,6S,6aS,12R,12aS,12bS)-3-
[(cyclopropylcarbonyl)oxy]-1,3,4,4a,5,6,6a,12,12a,12b-decahydro-

6,12-dihydroxy-4,6a,12b-trimethyl-11-oxo-9-(3-pyridinyl)-2H,11H-
naphtho[2,1-b]pyrano[3,4-e]pyran-4-yl]methyl cyclopropanecarboxylate,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on multiple commodities
which are identified and discussed later in this document. BASF
Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 13, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 13, 2018,
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-2016-0416, is available at http://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 Building, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 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 is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, P.E., Director,
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 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 EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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-2016-0416 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
November 13, 2018. 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-2016-0416, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://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 Avenue NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 12, 2016 (81 FR 53380) (FRL-9949-
53), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6F8468) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528. The petition requested that 40 CFR part
180 be amended by establishing permanent tolerances in primary crops
for residues of the insecticide afidopyropen,
[(3S,4R,4aR,6S,6aS,12R,12aS,12bS)-3-[(cyclopropylcarbonyl)oxy]-
1,3,4,4a,5,6,6a,12,12a,12b-decahydro-6,12-dihydroxy-4,6a,12b-trimethyl-
11-oxo-9-(3-pyridinyl)-2H,11H-naphtho[2,1-b]pyrano[3,4-e]pyran-4-
yl]methyl cyclopropanecarboxylate, its metabolites, and degradates, in
or on the following raw agricultural and processed commodities: Almond,
hulls at 0.15 parts per million (ppm); Apple, wet pomace at 0.05 ppm;
Citrus, oil at 0.3 ppm; Cotton, gin byproducts at 2 ppm; Cotton,
undelinted seed at 0.1 ppm; Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.15 ppm;
Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.03 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.03
ppm; Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm; Plum, prune at 0.06 ppm;
Soybean, aspirated grain fractions at 0.4 ppm; Soybean, seed at 0.01
ppm; Vegetable, brassica, head and stem, group 5-13 at 0.5 ppm;
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.7 ppm; Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-
10 at 0.15 ppm; Vegetable, leaf petioles, subgroup 22B at 3 ppm;
Vegetable, leafy, subgroup 4-13A at 2 ppm; Vegetable, leafy, subgroup
4-13B at 5 ppm; and Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.01
ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
BASF Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket,
http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response
to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition and EPA
policy, the Agency has revised some of the commodity definitions and
tolerance levels from the petition, and concluded that the following
tolerances are appropriate for afidopyropen in or on the following
commodities: Almond, hulls at 0.15 ppm; Apple, wet pomace at 0.05 ppm;
Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 0.50 ppm; Brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 4-16B at 5.0 ppm; Citrus, oil at 0.40 ppm; Cotton, gin

byproducts at 2.0 ppm; Cotton, undelinted seed at 0.08 ppm; Fruit,
citrus, group 10-10 at 0.15 ppm; Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.02 ppm;
Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.03 ppm; Grain, aspirated fractions at
0.15 ppm; Leafy Greens, subgroup 4-16A at 2.0 ppm; Leaf petiole
vegetable subgroup 22B at 3.0 ppm; Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm;
Soybean, seed at 0.01 ppm; Tomato, dried at 0.50 ppm; Vegetable,
cucurbit, group 9 at 0.70 ppm; Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.20
ppm; and Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.01 ppm. The
reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for afidopyropen including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with afidopyropen follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Afidopyropen is classified as category III for acute oral and acute
dermal, and category IV for acute inhalation, primary eye irritation,
and dermal irritation. The toxicology database for afidopyropen is
complete. The target organs identified following exposure to
afidopyropen are the liver, heart, brain, spleen, and reproductive
organs of both sexes. The liver is a main target organ in both
subchronic and chronic oral toxicity studies in all three-species
tested (i.e., mouse, rat, and dog).
    There was no evidence of neurotoxicity seen in the subchronic
neurotoxicity study in rats up to the highest dose tested. Afidopyropen
caused neurotoxic effects in the acute neurotoxicity study; however,
only at the limit dose of 2,000 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day).
    There is evidence of increased susceptibility following pre- and or
post-natal exposure to afidopyropen. In a prenatal developmental study
in rats, adverse effects in fetuses included an increased incidence of
skeletal variations (lumbar ribs), increased ossification of the
metatarsi, and an altered sex ratio (increased percentage of male
pups); however, maternal effects were not observed up to the highest
dose tested. In a second developmental study in rats, adverse fetal
effects (increased incidence of skeletal variations and supernumerary
ribs) occurred at a lower dose as compared to maternal effects
(mortality in one animal). In a developmental study in rabbits, fetal
developmental and maternal effects occurred at the same dose level.
Effects included a decreased number of live fetuses, increased early
resorptions and completely resorbed litters, as well as increased post-
implantation loss. Fetuses also exhibited an altered sex ratio
(increased percentage of male pups) at this dose level.
    Quantitative susceptibility was also observed in two 2-generation
rat studies. In the first study, no reproductive or parental effects
were observed, while offspring effects were decreased absolute body
weight in both sexes and F1 pup and litter deaths. In the second study,
offspring effects included decreased absolute body weight and decreased
spleen and thymus weights in both sexes. Reproductive effects included
effects on ovary and uterus weight, decreased implantation sites, and
an altered sex ratio (increased percentage of male pups). In this
study, the parental and offspring effects occurred at the same dose
level.
    Afidopyropen did not display systemic effects in the 28-day dermal
study, even at the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. There were no adverse
effects observed in the route-specific dermal toxicity study up to the
limit dose; however, there is evidence of increased susceptibility
following pre- and/or post-natal exposure to afidopyropen. As a result,
an oral point of departure was selected since the dermal toxicity study
did not evaluate developmental or reproductive endpoints. A point of
departure (POD) for dermal exposures (all durations) was selected from
the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, this POD reflects the most
sensitive endpoint in the database, and is protective of effects
observed following subchronic exposure, including the fetal effects
seen in the rat and rabbit developmental studies. This POD is also
selected for inhalation exposures (all durations), and incidental oral
and chronic dietary exposures. Chronic dietary was set using 2 co-
critical studies (chronic dog study and 2-generation rat reproduction
study). For acute dietary exposure, the POD is based on maternal and
developmental effects (increased early resorptions of litters) observed
in the rabbit developmental study and is applicable to females of
childbearing age. An acute dietary POD was not identified for the
general population because acute effects of concern for this population
were not observed in the toxicology database.
    In an immunotoxicity study in the rat, there were no adverse
effects noted up to the highest dose tested.
    Afidopyropen is classified as ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic
Potential'' based on benign hepatocellular adenomas in male rats and
uterine adenocarcinomas and combined adenocarcinomas and adenomas in
female rats. There is insufficient evidence to support the petition's
description of a uterine tumor mode-of action (MOA) in female rats.
There is no concern for mutagenicity. Quantification of human cancer
risk is not required. The chronic Reference Dose (RfD) will adequately
account for all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, which
could result from exposure to afidopyropen.
    More detailed information on the studies received and the nature of
the adverse effects caused by afidopyropen as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found in the document
entitled ``Afidopyropen. Human Health Risk Assessment for Section 3
Requests for a

New Active Ingredient,'' dated April 4, 2018, by going to http://www.regulations.gov. The referenced document is available in the docket
established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES. Locate
and double-click on the hyperlink for the referenced document to view
the referenced information on pages 16-23 of 112.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for afidopyropen used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Afidopyropen for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/      RfD, PAD, LOC for    Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors        risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (General             An endpoint was not identified because effects of concern for this population
 population).                       were not observed in the toxicology database.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (Females 13+)......  NOAEL = 16 mg/kg/day  Acute RfD = 0.16 mg/  Rabbit Prenatal Developmental
                                    UFA = 10X             kg/day                Study:
                                   UFH = 10X...........  aPAD = 0.16 mg/kg/    Maternal and developmental LOAEL
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........   day.                  = 32 mg/kg/day, based on
                                                                                increased early resorptions per
                                                                                litter.
Chronic Dietary (All populations   NOAEL = 8 mg/kg/day   Chronic RfD = 0.08    2 Co-critical Studies:
 including females 13+).           UFA = 10X...........   mg/kg/day            Chronic Dog Study:
                                   UFH = 10X...........  cPAD = 0.08 mg/kg/    LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day, based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........   day.                  hyaline droplet deposition in
                                                                                hepatocytes and vacuolation of
                                                                                the white matter and neuropil of
                                                                                the cerebrum of male dogs.
                                                                               2-Generation Rat Reproduction
                                                                                Study:
                                                                               Offspring LOAEL = 41 mg/kg/day,
                                                                                based on decreased absolute body
                                                                                weight, and decreased spleen and
                                                                                thymus weights of male rats.
Dermal Short-term (1 to 30 days).  NOAEL = 8 mg/kg/day   LOC for MOE = 100...  2-Generation Rat Reproduction
                                   Dermal absorption =                          Study:
                                    15%.                                       Offspring LOAEL = 41 mg/kg/day,
                                   UFA = 10X...........                         based on decreased absolute body
                                   UFH = 10X...........                         weight, and decreased spleen and
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........                         thymus weights of male rats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation (All durations).......  A point of departure (POD) used for inhalation exposures (all durations) was
                                    selected from the 2-generation rat reproduction study, is the most sensitive
                                    endpoint in the database, and is protective of effects observed following
                                    subchronic exposure, including the fetal effects seen in the rat and rabbit
                                    developmental studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  Classification: ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential[hairsp]''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of Departure (POD) = A data point or an estimated point that is derived from observed dose-response data
  and used to mark the beginning of extrapolation to determine risk associated with lower environmentally
  relevant human exposures. NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level. LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect
  level. UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential
  variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). FQPA SF = FQPA Safety Factor.
  PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. MOE = margin of exposure. LOC =
  level of concern.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to afidopyropen, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances, and assessed dietary exposures from afidopyropen in
food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. In estimating acute dietary
(food and drinking water) exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model-Food Commodity
Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 3.16), which
incorporates 2003-2008 consumption data from the United States
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). The acute
dietary assessment was conducted using recommended tolerance-level
residues and 100% crop treated assumptions. Empirical and default
processing factors were used. Screening-level estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs)

were incorporated as point estimates, based on surface water modeling.
The acute EDWC (7.1 ppb) was modeled using the Florida cabbage
scenario.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment, EPA used DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 3.16, which
incorporates 2003-2008 consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/WWEIA.
The chronic dietary assessment was conducted using recommended
tolerance-level residues and 100% crop treated assumptions. Empirical
and default processing factors were used. Screening-level EDWCs were
incorporated as point estimates, based on surface water modeling. The
chronic EDWC (3.9 ppb) was modeled using the California lettuce
scenario.
    iii. Cancer. As explained in unit III.A., quantification of risk
using a non-linear approach (i.e., a cPAD) will adequately account for
all chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, that could result from
exposure to afidopyropen.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use any anticipated residue or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for afidopyropen. Tolerance-level residues and 100
PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for afidopyropen in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of afidopyropen.
    Afidopyropen may be transported to surface water and groundwater
via runoff, leaching, or spray drift. Afidopyropen is a new chemical;
therefore, at this point, no monitoring data are available. Because the
Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water
concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling,
taking into account data on the physical and fate characteristics of
afidopyropen. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the latest version of the Pesticides in Water Calculator
(PWC 1.52) and incorporating the Pesticide Root Zone Model for Ground
Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
afidopyropen for acute exposures are estimated to be 7.1 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water, and 3.8 x 10-4 ppb for
ground water. For chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments, the
EDWCs are estimated to be 3.9 ppb for surface water and 1.1 x
10-4 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates for drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 7.1 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic and cancer dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 3.9 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). The proposed use of
afidopyropen on ornamentals can be in residential or recreational
settings. All afidopyropen product labels require users to wear
specific clothing and PPE (i.e., gloves), and are assumed to be
marketed for commercial use; therefore, a quantitative residential
handler assessment was not conducted.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found afidopyropen to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances. Afidopyropen and another pesticide,
aminocyclopyrachlor, both produce the common toxic metabolite CPCA;
however, co-exposure to CPCA from both pesticides are unlikely to
occur. Drinking water is the only expected exposure pathway for CPCA
for either pesticide. The likelihood of having ground water residues of
both afidopyropen and aminocyclopyrachlor at the EDWC predicted in the
screening ground water modeling in the same location is miniscule for
the following reasons: Ground water modeling assumes application of a
chemical at the maximum rate, and the maximum number of applications,
every year for up to 100 years, and because lateral flow of chemicals
away from the application site is relatively slow, both chemicals would
have to be applied in approximately the same location every year at the
maximum application rates, at maximum numbers of applications for each,
for the exposures to be additive, and this is not a feasible scenario.
For the purposes of this tolerance action; therefore, EPA has assumed
that afidopyropen does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances or cause a cumulative effect as a result of the common
metabolite with aminocyclopyrachlor. For information regarding EPA's
efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of
toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see
EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Pre-natal and post-natal sensitivity. There is evidence of
increased susceptibility following pre- and or post-natal exposure to
afidopyropen. In a prenatal developmental study in rats, adverse
effects in fetuses included an increased incidence of lumbar ribs,
increased ossification of the metatarsi, and an increased percentage of
male pups; however, maternal effects were not observed up to the
highest dose tested. In a second developmental study in rats, adverse
fetal effects (increased incidence of skeletal variations and
supernumerary ribs) occurred at a lower dose as compared to maternal
effects (mortality in one animal). In a developmental study in rabbits,
fetal developmental and maternal effects (increased early resorptions
and completely resorbed litters) were observed.
    Quantitative susceptibility was also observed in two 2-generation
rat studies. In the first study, no reproductive or parental effects
were observed, while offspring effects were decreased absolute body
weight in both sexes and F1 pup and litter deaths. In the second study,
offspring effects included decreased absolute body weight and decreased
spleen and thymus weights in both sexes. Reproductive effects included
effects on ovary and uterus

weight, decreased implantation sites, and an altered sex ratio
(increased percentage of male pups). In this study, the parental and
offspring effects occurred at the same dose level.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X for all exposure scenarios. That decision is
based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicology database for afidopyropen is considered complete
for evaluating and characterizing toxicity, assessing children's
susceptibility under FQPA, and selecting endpoints for the exposure
pathways of concern.
    ii. Acute oral (gavage) and sub-chronic oral (dietary)
neurotoxicity studies were conducted in rats. No evidence of specific
neurotoxicity was seen in the subchronic neurotoxicity study up to the
highest dose tested (369/438 mg/kg/day). Afidopyropen caused neurotoxic
effects in the acute study; however, only at the limit dose.
    Indications of neurotoxicity in mice and dogs were limited to
vacuolation of white matter and/or spinal cord. The Agency has low
concern because the nervous tissues in the mouse and dog studies were
not perfused in-situ; therefore, the vacuolation that was observed is
more likely an artifact of not preparing the tissues properly. The
nervous tissue vacuolation seen in the subchronic dog and mice
(subchronic and chronic) studies occurred at doses 7.5X-115X higher
than the POD for the chronic dietary risk assessment. As a result, the
effects are well-characterized with clearly established NOAEL/LOAEL
values and the selected PODs are protective for the observed neurotoxic
effects.
    Based on the weight of the evidence and taking into consideration
the PODs selected for risk assessment, a developmental neurotoxicity
study is not required at this time. Clear NOAELs have been established
for all lifestages, the selected PODs are protective of all pre- and
post-natal toxicity observed throughout the database, and no specific
neuropathological effects were noted. The adverse neuropathological
effects observed in the subchronic mouse and dog and the chronic mouse
studies occurred at doses 7.5X-115X higher than the lowest POD, and the
rat (species typically used in the DNT) is less sensitive than dogs and
mice to afidopyropen's putative neurotoxic effects.
    iii. There is evidence of increased susceptibility following pre-
and/or post-natal exposure to afidopyropen. In pre-natal developmental
studies in rats, adverse fetal effects occurred at lower doses as
compared to the maternal generation. In the first 2-generation study,
offspring effects were observed while no adverse reproductive or
parental effects occurred. In the second 2-generation study, offspring
effects occurred at a lower dose as compared to the reproductive and
parental effects. Clear NOAELs have been established for the
developmental effects in rats and rabbits as well as the offspring
effects in the two-generation reproduction studies. The NOAEL used for
the chronic dietary risk assessment (8 mg/kg/day), based on effects
observed in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, is protective
of all developmental and offspring effects seen in the database.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary assessment is based on high-end assumptions such
as tolerance-equivalent residue levels of the parent compound in foods,
100% CT, default processing factors, and modeled, high-end estimates of
residues in drinking water. All of the exposure estimates are based on
high-end assumptions and are not likely to underestimate risk. In
addition, the residential exposure assessment was conducted based on
the Residential SOPs such that residential exposure and risk will not
be underestimated.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
only to afidopyropen will occupy 3.6% of the aPAD for females, 13-49
years old. Since there was no acute endpoint identified for the general
population, an acute dietary exposure assessment was not conducted for
the U.S. general population and other population subgroups.
    2. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). In estimating
the short-term aggregate risk, EPA has aggregated the total short-term
residential exposure and average dietary (food and water) exposure. The
selected residential exposure scenarios for aggregation, adults and
children (6 to <11 years old) contacting treated ornamentals, represent
the worst-case risk estimates and are protective of all other
lifestages and exposure scenarios. The short-term aggregate MOEs for
adults (2,000) and children (2,500) are above the LOC (100), and are
not of concern.
    3. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Because no intermediate-term exposure is anticipated,
afidopyropen is not expected to pose an intermediate-term aggregate
risk.
    4. Chronic risk. Chronic aggregate risk assessments address
exposures that are likely to occur continuously for greater than six
months. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit for
chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic dietary exposure to
afidopyropen from food and water only will occupy 2.2% of the cPAD for
the U.S. general population, and the population subgroup with the
highest estimated risk was for children, 1-2 years old at 4.4% of the
cPAD. Residential exposures to afidopyropen are not expected to occur
on a chronic basis; therefore, the chronic aggregate risk estimates are
equivalent to the chronic dietary risk estimates, and are below EPA's
LOC.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Afidopyropen is
classified as having ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential.''
The cRfD (cPAD) is considered to be protective of all chronic toxicity,
including carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to
afidopyropen.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the U.S. general population, or to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to afidopyropen residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Suitable tolerance enforcement methods for plants and livestock
using liquid chromatography- mass spectrometer/mass spectrometer (LC-
MS/MS) analyses were submitted for the analysis of afidopyropen. The
reported

limit of quantitation (LOQ) of each method is 0.01 ppm for
afidopyropen.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint 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. Maximum residue limits
(MRLs) for afidopyropen have not been established by Codex.
    For this pesticide, the U.S. EPA and Health Canada's Pest
Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) have conducted a joint review of
the available data. That review used the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) calculation procedures to determine
the appropriate MRLs. Therefore, the EPA tolerance levels are
harmonized with MRLs to be established by Health Canada's PMRA.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Several of the tolerances requested by the petitioner are different
from those established in this rule. EPA's tolerance levels are
expressed to provide sufficient precision for enforcement purposes, and
this may include the addition of trailing zeros (such as 0.30 ppm
rather than 0.3 ppm). This is to avoid the situation where rounding of
an observed violative residue to the level of precision of the
tolerance expression would result in a residue considered non-violative
(such as 0.34 ppm being rounded to 0.3 ppm). This revision has been
made for the following: Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16; Brassica,
leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B; Cotton, gin byproducts; Leafy Greens,
subgroup 4-16A; Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B; and Vegetable,
cucurbit, group 9.
    For citrus oil and cotton, undelinted seed, the levels differ
because of differences in rounding the values calculated from the
residue data. The pome fruit tolerance is different because of
differences in the MRL calculation for pear. Two pear field trials were
concluded to be replicates for calculation and the petitioner also used
an additional residue value which is believed to be a transcription
error. A tolerance for the processed food prunes is not needed because
residues are not expected to concentrate in prunes. For fruiting
vegetables, these differences are attributable to the petitioner having
combined both the bell and non-bell pepper data together for
calculation. In addition, the petitioner did not request a tolerance
for the dried tomato processed commodity, but EPA has concluded that
the tolerance for the crop group will not be adequate to cover that
commodity. Finally, regarding ``Soybean, aspirated grain fractions,''
the tolerance level requested by the petitioner was not consistent with
data submitted with the petition. EPA reviewed the requested use
pattern and supporting data, corrected the proposed commodity
definition, and has decided to establish a tolerance for commodity
``Grain, aspirated fractions.''

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of afidopyropen,
[(3S,4R,4aR,6S,6aS,12R,12aS,12bS)-3-[(cyclopropylcarbonyl)oxy]-
1,3,4,4a,5,6,6a,12,12a,12b-decahydro-6,12-dihydroxy-4,6a,12b-trimethyl-
11-oxo-9-(3-pyridinyl)-2H,11H-naphtho[2,1-b]pyrano[3,4-e]pyran-4-
yl]methyl cyclopropanecarboxylate, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on Almond, hulls at 0.15 ppm; Apple, wet pomace at
0.05 ppm; Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 0.50 ppm; Brassica,
leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 5.0 ppm; Citrus, oil at 0.40 ppm;
Cotton, gin byproducts at 2.0 ppm; Cotton, undelinted seed at 0.08 ppm;
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.15 ppm; Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at
0.02 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.03 ppm; Grain, aspirated
fractions at 0.15 ppm; Leafy Greens, subgroup 4-16A at 2.0 ppm; Leaf
petiole vegetable subgroup 22B at 3.0 ppm; Nut, tree, group 14-12 at
0.01 ppm; Soybean, seed at 0.01 ppm; Tomato, dried at 0.50 ppm;
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.70 ppm; Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-
10 at 0.20 ppm; and Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.01
ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this 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 on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), 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).

VII. 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: September 5, 2018.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  180.700 to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.700  Afidopyropen; Tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of
afidopyropen, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only afidopyropen,
[(3S,4R,4aR,6S,6aS,12R,12aS,12bS)-3-[(cyclopropylcarbonyl)oxy]-
1,3,4,4a,5,6,6a,12,12a,12b-decahydro-6,12-dihydroxy-4,6a,12b-trimethyl-
11-oxo-9-(3-pyridinyl)-2H,11H-naphtho[2,1-b]pyrano[3,4-e]pyran-4-
yl]methyl cyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on the following food
commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls...............................................        0.15
Apple, wet pomace...........................................        0.05
Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16.........................        0.50
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B......................         5.0
Citrus, oil.................................................        0.40
Cotton, gin byproducts......................................         2.0
Cotton, undelinted seed.....................................        0.08
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10..................................        0.15
Fruit, pome, group 11-10....................................        0.02
Fruit, stone, group 12-12...................................        0.03
Grain, aspirated fractions..................................        0.15
Leafy Greens, subgroup 4-16A................................         2.0
Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B.........................         3.0
Nut, tree, group 14-12......................................        0.01
Soybean, seed...............................................        0.01
Tomato, dried...............................................        0.50
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9................................        0.70
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10.............................        0.20
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C...................        0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2018-19951 Filed 9-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 44)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11304]
[DOCID:fr07mr06-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM06-13-000]

Conditions for Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization
Holders

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule: correction.

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

SUMMARY: The document corrects an effective date in a final rule
published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2006. That action
amended Commission regulations to include certain rules governing the
conduct of entities authorized to make sales of electricity and related
products under market-based rate authorizations.

DATES: Effective February 27, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Karabetsos, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, (202)
502-8273<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 06-1719 published on February 27,
2006 (71 FR 9698), make the following correction:
    On page 9698, in column 2, under the heading DATES correct the
effective date to read, ``February 27, 2006.''

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-2153 Filed 3-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


The entire transcript of this virtual meeting can be viewed at www.regulations.gov at Docket Number OSHA-2020-0010-0053

                                MEETING SUMMARY
             OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)
         MARITIME ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH
                                   (MACOSH)
                               February 15, 2022

                           U.S. Department of labor
                           200 Constitution Ave., NW
                            Washington, D.C.  20210

The meeting of the Maritime Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH) was called to order by Chairman Donald Raffo at 1:00 p.m., on Tuesday, February 15, 2022.  This meeting was held via WebEx and teleconference.  The following committee members and OSHA staff were present:

MACOSH Members
Donald V. Raffo, General Dynamics Electric Boat Corporation, MACOSH Chair
Aaron Arabski, Noble Drilling
William Crow, Virginia Ship Repair
Solomon Egbe, National Safety Council
Robert Fiore, NYSA/ILA Training Center
John Goering, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration
Amy Liu, Marine Chemist Association
Michael Oathout, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
Michael Podue, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 63
Jeremy Riddle, Balterm, LLC  -  South Locust Point Marine Terminal
James Rone, Washington State Department of Labor and Industries
Lawrence Russell, National Fire Protection Association
Alice Shumate, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Carolyn Salyer, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

OSHA Staff
Douglas Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA
Maureen Ruskin, Deputy Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance
Amy Wangdahl, Designated Federal Official, Director, OSHA, Office of Maritime and Agriculture
Danielle Watson, OSHA, Shipyard Workgroup Support
Nicholas DeAngelis, OSHA, Longshoring Workgroup Support
Jennifer Levin, Committee Counsel, Office of the Solicitor
Carla Marcellus, OSHA, MACOSH Support

Members of the Public
See Attachment 1

                 Opening Remarks, Roll Call and Introductions
                          Donald Raffo, MACOSH Chair

Mr. Raffo called the meeting to order, welcomed everyone and then called the roll of the members.  Everyone was present except for Jennifer Poythress.  Ms. Poythress resigned from the committee, and the U.S. Coast Guard has submitted a nominee to replace Ms. Poythress.
Mr. Raffo briefly went over the agenda, and a motion was made and seconded to accept the minutes of the September 14, 2021, meeting transcript.  The meeting minutes were accepted and entered into the record.  (Pages 4-11)

Agenda  OSHA-2020-0010-0050
Meeting minutes  OSHA-2020-0010-0061

                   Office of Maritime and Agriculture Update
    Amy Wangdahl, Director, OSHA, Office of Maritime and Agriculture (OMA)

Ms. Wangdahl provided an update on MACOSH's work for the last two years (2019-2021).  She mentioned that the Committee had been very productive, and that 15 documents have come from its recommendations.  The Shipyard Workgroup produced several fact sheets, including one on the Hazards Associated with Preservative Coatings and a quick card on Shipyard Competent Persons.  Both documents were printed last year in both English and Spanish.  The Fire Watch Safety and Physical Hazards in Confined Spaces fact sheets are in clearance.  During the last MACOSH meeting in September 2021, the Shipyard Workgroup submitted four documents.

The Longshore Workgroup's documents consisted of four mechanic safety posters.  The Chassis Mechanic Safety, Cranes Mechanic Safety and Reefer Mechanic Safety posters were published in November 2021 and the Power Mechanic Safety poster was published in January 2022.  The Prevention of Lashing Injuries in Longshoring has not been submitted for clearance yet.

Ms. Wangdahl stated that the Longshore Workgroup will be looking at some older documents to determine if they are still relevant, and that the Safety Culture poster Mr. Raffo suggested both workgroups develop together is being altered to fit all industries for OSHA's Safe and Sound campaign.  (Pages 12-17)

The OMA Update was entered into the record.  OSHA-2020-0010-0051

        Directorate of Standards and Guidance: Regulatory Agenda Update
Maureen Ruskin, Deputy Director, OSHA, Directorate of Standards and Guidance (DSG)

Ms. Ruskin briefly described the regulatory agenda which is published twice a year in the fall and spring.  She mentioned all of the regulatory items that DSG is working on: an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for blood lead levels for medical removal; a request for information (RFI) on mechanical power presses was published, and staff is currently reviewing comments; a stakeholder meeting for the process safety management standard is being planned; an ANPRM for heat illness prevention in indoor and outdoor work settings was published in October 2021 and staff is currently reviewing the comments received; a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBREFA) panel was held on emergency response in December 2021 and another is being planned for early 2022 for workplace violence in healthcare settings; the ANPRM for powered industrial truck design will be published soon; the agency is looking into reopening the record for walking working surfaces by September 2022; staff is reviewing comments submitted on the hazard communication standard; an ANPRM for infectious disease standard in healthcare will be published in 2022; DSG is currently updating the scaffolding, ladders and other working surfaces standard; and SBREFA Panel was completed for tree care  in 2020.

Ms. Ruskin discussed the agency's heat illness programs, including the heat illness prevention campaign.  OSHA has revamped its webpage and has new and updated products such as a heat poster, wallet cards, infographics for social media, talking points and outreach presentations.  She also discussed the creation of the NACOSH Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Workgroup, which has been charged with addressing both indoor and outdoor work settings and providing recommended guidance for OSHA to develop.

Ms. Ruskin also discussed the agency's multifaceted safety and health program, such as the OSHA 7500 course which was completely revamped at the agency's education centers, guidance on leading indicators was recently published, the updated Safety Pays which helps employers assess the impacts of occupational safety and what injuries, illnesses and fatalities cost their business, and developing a maturation framework.  She also spoke about OSHA's Safe and Sound campaign. (Pages 19-39)

DSG Regulatory Agenda Update  OSHA-2020-0010-0052

                                 OSHA Overview
Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health

Mr. Parker thanked the MACOSH members for volunteering their time to address safety and health issues in the maritime community, which is a very specialized industry.  He mentioned that the MACOSH Charter will be renewed this year, and a call for new members will be announced this summer or fall.

Mr. Parker mentioned that the agency remains at the forefront of preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace and protecting workers from exposure.  OSHA has launched a national emphasis program, issued two emergency standards, and is finalizing a COVD-19 healthcare rule.  The agency is also working on a permanent infectious disease standard and working to address occupational heat exposure.  OSHA is currently reviewing comments received for the ANPRM on heat illness prevention in indoor and outdoor work settings to determine the next steps.  Mr. Parker said he looked forward to hearing recommendations from MACOSH as it relates to occupational heat exposure in the maritime industry.

Mr. Parker encouraged the members to think beyond the status quo, and mentioned the agency was looking at innovative ideas and how it can do things differently to improve outcomes for workers.  (Pages 42-56)
                           Shipyard Workgroup Update
                       Amy Lui Sly, Shipyard Workgroup

Ms. Liu presented the Shipyard Workgroup update.  She stated that the workgroup has held monthly conference calls since the last meeting and has developed several products for publication: heat stress in confined spaces pamphlet, prevention of fires on vessels poster, and use of heat resistant materials for hot work operations guidance document.  The Shipyard Workgroup will be working on organizing the development of managing hazardous materials, hurricane preparedness, and confined-space rescue.  (Pages 59-61)

The Committee voted to approve the following items with a recommendation that OSHA publish them as guidance documents:

Heat Stress During Confined Space Work  OSHA-2020-0010-0056
Prevention of Fires on Vessels  OSHA-2020-0010-0059
Use of Heat Resistant Materials during Hot Work  OSHA-2020-0010-0060

The above documents were entered into the record, along with the Shipyard Workgroup presentation, OSHA-2020-0010-0055

                              Longshore Workgroup
                    David Turner, Longshore Workgroup Chair

Mr. Turner presented the Longshore Workgroup Update.  He stated that the workgroup had four conference calls since the last meeting and developed two documents: on-dock rail safety guidance document and line handling safety fact sheet.   They are currently working on a line handling guidance document and will be developing a document addressing hatch access safety.  Mr. Raffo suggested that the workgroup consider some other topics to work on in the future. (Pages 64-69)

The Committee voted to approve the following items with a recommendation that OSHA publish them as guidance documents:

On-Dock Rail Safety  OSHA-2020-0010-0058
Line Handling Safety  OSHA-2020-0010-0057

The above documents were entered into the record, along with the Longshore Workgroup presentation, OSHA-2020-0010-0054

                 Open Discussion, Closing Remarks, Adjournment

Mr. Raffo opened the meeting up to the members for additional comments and then to the public.  He thanked the members and OSHA staff for their work.  Ms. Wangdahl thanked everyone for all their work on the committee.  In addition, she mentioned that later this summer the agency will announce MACOSH's rechartering and call for members in separate Federal Register notices. (pages 70-88)

The meeting was adjourned at 3:04 p.m.

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes are an accurate summary of the meeting.

__________________________________________
Donald Raffo
MACOSH Chair
Date:

Attachment 1
Members of the Public in Attendance

Alan Davis
Angela Kirby
Anissa Harmon
Brent Yezesky
Brian Rizzo
Cheryl Gannon
Chrystal Bryant
Drew Kelley
Eric Kampert
Erick Saia
Ian Moar
Jason Winter
Jeremy Fuchs
Jessica Kane
Joe Farley
John Vos
Karissa Waddick
Kimberly Darby
Lisa Long
Lisa Trecartin
Maggi Denton
Mark Crutcher
Megan Walters
Meghan Smith
Michael Hall
Sid Holcomb
Stephanie Carter
Steve Pellegrin
Watasha Lusby
William Bridges