[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51691-51692]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2022-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2264]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before November 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2264, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

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

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Sacramento County, California and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 20-09-0040S Preliminary Date: March 31, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Citrus Heights.................  General Services Department
                                          Engineering Division, 6360
                                          Fountain Square Drive, Citrus
                                          Heights, CA 95621.
City of Folsom.........................  Public Works Department, 50
                                          Natoma Street, Folsom, CA
                                          95630.
City of Sacramento.....................  Department of Utilities
                                          Engineering & Water Resources
                                          Division, 1395 35th Avenue,
                                          Sacramento, CA 95822.
Unincorporated Areas of Sacramento       Sacramento County Department of
 County.                                  Water Resources, 827 7th
                                          Street, Suite 301, Sacramento,
                                          CA 95814.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Hanson County, South Dakota and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 18-08-0012S Preliminary Date: March 25, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Alexandria.....................  City Hall, 421 Main Street,
                                          Alexandria, SD 57311.
City of Emery..........................  City Hall, 560 South Dakota
                                          Highway 262, Emery, SD 57332.
Town of Fulton.........................  City Hall, 230 North Main
                                          Avenue, Fulton, SD 57340.
Unincorporated Areas of Hanson County..  Hanson County Courthouse, 720
                                          5th Street, Alexandria, SD
                                          57311.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Marshall County, South Dakota and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 18-08-0041S Preliminary Date: September 1, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Tribe..........  Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate
                                          Emergency Management Office,
                                          12554 BIA Highway 711, Agency
                                          Village, SD 57262.
Town of Langford.......................  City Finance Office, 306 Main
                                          Street, Langford, SD 57454.
Town of Veblen.........................  Marshall County Courthouse, 911
                                          Vander Horck Street, Britton,
                                          SD 57430.
Unincorporated Areas of Marshall County  Marshall County Courthouse, 911
                                          Vander Horck Street, Britton,
                                          SD 57430.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-18125 Filed 8-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


FILE NAME: company. wpt ( 1/ 1/ 2005) ( xml) Template Number P25 ATTENTION:

All commodity terms must comply with the Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary database ( http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ foodfeed/).

All text in blue font ( instructions for preparing the document), should be removed prior to sending the document to the Federal Register Staff. Instructional text and prompts in green font should also be removed.

COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE ( 1/ 1/ 2005)

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

INSTRUCTIONS: Please utilize this outline in preparing tolerance petition documents. In cases where the outline element does not apply please insert " NA Remove" and maintain the outline. The comment notes that appear on the left margin represent hidden typesetting codes designed to expedite the processing of the Federal Register document. Please do not remove or alter these comment notes or change the margins, font, or format in your document. Simply replace the instructions that appear in italics and brackets, i. e., "[ insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

[ Bayer CropScience]

[ Insert petition number] EPA has received a pesticide petition ([ XXXXX]) from [ Bayer CropScience], [ 2 T. W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709] proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of clothianidin in or on the raw agricultural commodities [ cotton, undelinted seed and cotton, gin byproducts] at [ 0.01] parts per million ( ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition. A. Residue Chemistry 2 1. Plant metabolism. In plants, the metabolism of clothianidin is adequately understood for the purposes of establishing these proposed tolerances. Unchanged parent clothianidin was the predominant residue in all crop matrices ( 14.4% to 64.5% in corn, 66.1% to 96.6% in tomatoes, 4.3% to 24.4% in sugar beets and 24.3% to 63.3% in apples), with the exception of sugar beet leaves. In sugar beet leaves, the main components were the methylguanidine and thiazolylmethylguanidine metabolites, accounting for 28.6% and 27.7%, respectively. All metabolites found in plants were also found in the animal metabolism studies. In animals, parent clothianidin was the major component in liver, muscle and fat. Based on the available metabolism data, parent clothianidin, thiazolyl guanidine ( TZG), thiazolyl urea ( TZU) , and ( ATMG Pyr) aminothiazolyl methylguanidine pyridine are proposed to be considered as the residues of concern in livestock matrices. 2. Analytical method. In plants and plant products, the residue of concern, parent clothianidin, can be determined using High Performance Liquid Chromotography ( HPLC) with Electrospray MS/ MS detection. In an extraction efficiency testing, the plant residues method has also demonstrated the ability to extract aged clothianidin residue.

Although the plant residues LC MS/ MS method is highly suitable for enforcement method, an LC UV method has also been developed which is suitable for enforcement ( monitoring) purposes in all relevant matrices. 3. Magnitude of residues in cotton  A total of 12 field trials was conducted to evaluate the quantity of clothianidin in cotton seed and cotton gin byproducts. Cotton seed was treated with PONCHO 600 FS at a rate of 8.96 fl. oz. of formulated product per 100 lbs seed ( 350 g ai/ 100kg seed). No clothianidin residues were found in any cotton seed or cotton gin byproduct samples at an LOQ of 0.01 ppm. In a cotton processing study cotton seed was treated at a 5X rate of 1750 g ai/ 100 kg seed. No residues at or above the LOQ of 0.01 ppm were found in the cotton seed. Therefore, a cotton processing study was not conducted.

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. The acute oral LD 50 was > 5,000 milligrams/ kilograms/ body weight ( mg/ kg bw) for both male and female rats. The acute dermal LD 50 was greater than 2,000 mg/ kg bw in rats. The 4 hour inhalation LC 50 was 5.538 mg/ L for male and female rats. Clothianidin was not irritating to rabbit skin and only slightly irritating to the eyes and did not cause skin sensitization in guinea pigs.

2. Genotoxicty. Extensive mutagenicity studies were conducted with clothianidin. Based on the weight of evidence clothianidin was considered negative for genotoxicity. 3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a 2 generation reproduction study, rats were administered dietary levels of 0, 150, 500 and 2500 ppm. The No Observed Effect Level ( NOAEL) for reproductive parameters was 500 ppm ( 31.2/ 36.8 mg. kg/ day; M/ F) while the NOAEL for developmental effects was 150 ppm ( 9.8/ 11.5 mg/ kg/ day; M/ F). The parental systemic NOAEL was 500 ppm ( 31.2/ 36.8 mg/ kg/ day; M/ F). 3 A developmental toxicity study was conducted in rats with clothianidin using dose levels of 0, 10, 50 and 125 mg/ kg bw by gavage. The NOAEL for maternal toxicity was established at 10 mg/ kg bw and for developmental effects it was > 125 mg/ kg bw. Additionally, a developmental toxicity study was conducted with rabbits treated orally by gavage at 0, 10, 25, 75 and 100 mg/ kg bw. The NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 25 mg/ kg bw and for developmental toxicity it was75 mg/ kg bw.

Developmental toxicity studies showed no primary developmental toxicity and no teratogenic potential was evident.

4. Subchronic toxicity. Ninety day feeding studies were conducted in rats and dogs. The rat study was conducted at dietary levels of 0, 150, 500 and 3,000 ppm and the dog study was conducted at 0, 325, 650 and 1,500 ppm. The NOAELs were established at 500 ppm ( 27.9/ 34.0 mg/ kg/ day; M/ F) for rat and 650 ppm ( 19.3 mg/ kg/ day) for the female dog and 1500 ppm ( 42.1 mg/ kg/ day) for the female dog.

5. Chronic toxicity. A 2 year combined rat chronic / oncogenicity conducted at dietary levels of 0, 150, 500, 1,500 and 3,000 ppm demonstrated a NOAEL of 500 ppm ( 27.9/ 34.0 mg/ kg/ day) based on reduced weight gains and non neoplastic histomorphological changes. A 78 week mouse oncogenicity study conducted at dose levels of 0, 100, 350, 1,250 and 2,000, and 1,800 ppm for males and females, respectively, revealed a NOAEL of 350 ppm ( 47.2/ 65.1 mg/ kg/ day; M/ F) based on reduced body weight gains and increased incidence of hypercellular hypertrophy. No evidence of oncogenicity was seen in the rat or the mice. A 52 week chronic toxicity study in dogs conducted at dietary levels of 0, 325, 650, 1,500 and 2,000 ppm revealed a NOAEL of 2000 ppm ( 46.4 mg/ kg/ day) for the male dog and 1500 ppm ( 40.1 mg/ kg/ day) for the female dog.

6. Animal metabolism. The nature of the clothianidin residue in livestock is adequately understood. In animals, parent clothianidin was the major component in liver, muscle and fat. Based on the available metabolism data, parent clothianidin, TZG, TZU, and ATMG Pyr are proposed to be considered as the residues of concern in livestock matrices.

7. Metabolite toxicology. Eight in vivo metabolites of clothianidin identified in the rat were investigated for acute oral endpoint mutagenic activity. None of the metabolites were mutagenic either with or without activation and the LD 50 values range from < 500 to > 2,000 mg/ kg, showing low to moderate toxicity.

8. Endocrine disruption. All guideline studies conducted to characterize toxicological profile showed no endocrine related toxicity or tumorgenicity. No effects on triiodothyronine ( T3), throxine ( T4) or thyroid stimulating hormone ( TSH) were observed in the subchronic rat study. In a 2 generation reproduction study in rat; and rat and rabbit teratology studies, clothianidin did not show reproductive or teratogenic effects. The extensive database shows that clothianidin has no endocrine properties. 4 C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary Exposure. There are no residential uses for clothianidin therefore aggregate exposure consisits of dietary ( food and drking water) exposures. The acute population adjusted dose ( aPAD) of 0.025 mg/ kg bw/ day based on a acute NOAEL of 25 with an uncertainty factor of 1000 was used to assess acute dietary expsoure. The chronic population adjusted dose ( cPAD) of 0.0098 mg/ kg bw/ day based on a chric NOAEL of 9.8 with an unceratinty factor of 1000 was used to assess chronic exposure.

i. Food. In the Clothianidin Pesticide Tolerance Action for Corn and Canola of May 30, 2003 EPA conducted Tier 1 acute and chronic dietary assessments for clothianidin. These assessments included residues of clothianidin that arise from the uses of thiamethoxam which has clothianidin as a common metabolite. In December 2003, Bayer CropScience submitted a tolerance petition for registration of clothianidin as a seed treatment on sorghum with a proposed tolerance of 0.01 ppm. A revised dietary assessment was conducted which added the proposed sorghum tolerance of 0.01 ppm as well as the cotton tolerance of 0.01 ppm proposed in this petition. No significant contribution was seen from these uses. The US Population utilized 8.4% ( 0.00211mg/ kg bw/ day, 95th percentile) of the aPAD and 6.5% ( 0.00064 mg/ kg bw/ day) of the cPAD. The most highly exposed sub population is Children 1 2 at 19.1%( 0.00477 mg/ kg bw/ day, 95th percentile) of the aPAD and 19.1% ( 0.001875 mg/ kg bw/ day) of the cPAD.

ii. Drinking Water. US EPA's Standard Operating Procedure ( SOP) for Drinking Water Exposure and Risk Assessments was used to perform the drinking water assessment. This SOP uses a variety of tools to conduct drinking water assessment. These tools include water models such as SCI GROW, FIRST, PRZMS/ EXAMS, and monitoring data. If monitoring data are not available then the models are used to predict potential residues in surface and ground water and the highest is assumed to be the drinking water residue. In the case of clothianidin monitoring data do not exist therefore SCI GROW and FIRST were used to estimate a water residue. The calculated drinking water levels of comparison ( DWLOC) for acute chronic exposure for all adults and children exceed the estimated drinking water concentrations ( EDWC) from the models. The chronic DWLOC for adults is 321ppb and the acute DWLOC is 801ppb. The chronic DWLOC for children 1 2 is 79ppb and the acute DWLOC is 202ppb. The EDWC for the worst case chronic scenario is 2.14ppb ( FIRST) and the acute EDWC ( FIRST) is 3.97ppb. The drinking water levels of comparison are based on conservative dietary ( food) exposures and are expected to be much higher in real world situations.

2. Non dietary Exposure. Clothianidin is currently registered for use on turfgrasses. Exposures and risk resulting from the clothianidin residues on turfgrasses were included in the EPA risk assessment for thiamethoxam published in the Federal Register, January 5, 2005 and the clothianidin risk assessment published in the Federal Register, February 16, 2005..

D. Cumulative Effects 5 Clothianidin is a metabolite of thiamethoxam. Therefore, residues of clothianidin resulting from use of thiamethoxam were included in the above risk assessment. Currently, EPA has not determined that toxic effects produced by clothianidin are cumulative with those of any other compound.

E. Safety Determination 1. US Population. Using the conservative exposure assumptions described above and based on the completeness of the toxicity data, it can be concluded that aggregate exposure to residues of clothianidin present a reasonable certainty of no harm. Exposure from residues in crops utilize 8.4% of the aPAD and 6.5% of the cPAD. EPA generally has no concerns for exposures below 100% of the Population Adjusted Doses. Drinking water levels of concern are well above the estimated drinking water concentrations as calculated by conservative models. Clothianidin is registered for use on turf. The aggregate exposure to the U. S. Population and population subgroups was assessed by EPA and published in the Federal Register February 16, 2005. The cotton use does not increase the aggregate exposure. The conservative Tier 1 assessments demonstrate a reasonable certainty of no harm will result from uses of clothianidin for the US Population. 2. Infants and children. In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and children to residues of clothianidin, the data from developmental toxicity studies in both the rat and rabbit, a 2 generation reproduction study in rats and a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats have been considered.

The developmental toxicity studies evaluate potential adverse effects on the developing animal resulting from pesticide exposure of the mother during prenatal development. The reproduction study evaluates effects from exposure to the pesticide on the reproductive capability of mating animals through two generations, as well as any observed systemic toxicity.

The developmental neurotoxicity studies evaluate the neurobehavioral and neurotoxic effects on the developing animal resulting from the exposure of the mother. FFDCA Section 408 provides that EPA may apply an additional uncertainty factor for infants and children based on the threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal effects and the completeness of the toxicity database. Based on the current toxicological data requirements the toxicology database for clothianidin relative to prenatal and postnatal development is complete, including the developmental neurotoxicity study. None of the studies indicated the offsprings to be more sensitive. All effects were secondary to severe maternal toxicity. Therefore, no additional safety or uncertainty factor is justified.

F. International Tolerances No CODEX Maximum Residue Levels ( MRL's) have been established for residues of clothianidin on any crops at this time. 6


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5817-5818]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2301]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2010-0978]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget: OMB Control Number: 1625-0008

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0008,
Regattas and Marine Parades. Our ICR describes the information we seek
to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before March
4, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2010-0978] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulation.gov.
(b) To OIRA by e-mail via<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To
OIRA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk
Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-611), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2100 2nd St., SW., Stop 7101, Washington DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred
to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG 2010-0978], and must be received by March 4,
2011. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2010-0978], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an e-mail address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but please
submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2010-0978'' in the
``Keyword'' box. 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 will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice 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-2010-0978'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: USCG-2010-0978.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
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 statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (75 FR 67991, November 4,
2010) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no
comments.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Regattas and Marine Parades.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0008.
    Type of Request: Revision of a previously approved collection.
    Respondents: Sponsors of marine events.
    Abstract: Title 46 U.S.C. 1233 authorizes the Coast Guard to issue
rules promoting safety of life on navigable waters during regattas or
marine events. Title 33 CFR 100.17 and 100.18 include the rules for
providing notice of, and additional information for permitting
regattas/marine events to the Coast Guard.
    Forms: CG-4423.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 3,000 to
5,271 hours a year.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: January 28, 2011.
R. E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-2301 Filed 2-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P