[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46287-46289]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19009]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0634]
RIN 1625-AAOO

Safety Zone; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Mile Marker 35.2 to Mile
Marker 35.5, West of Harvey Locks, Bank to Bank, Lafourche Parish,
Larose, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is re-establishing a temporary safety zone in
the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Mile Marker 35.2 to Mile Marker 35.5,
west of Harvey Locks, bank to bank, Larose, Lafourche Parish, LA. This
Safety Zone is needed to protect the general public, vessels and tows
from destruction, loss or injury due to the installation of a new
sheetpile floodwall on the waterward side of the existing Larose
floodwall and construction of a new rip-rap barge impact barrier on the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway side of the new floodwall.

DATES: This rule is effective August 3, 2012 through January 1, 2013.
This rule is enforceable with actual notice on July 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2012-0634]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email Ensign (ENS) Nicholas Jones, Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 232, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. This rule re-establishes a safety zone
necessary to protect life and property from hazards associated with the
ongoing floodwall repair and construction project. The Coast Guard
established the initial safety zone for this project in a Temporary
Final Rule on January 25, 2012 at docket USCG-2011-1128 (77 FR 3609) to
be enforced through June 30, 2012. The floodwall repair and
construction project are still ongoing and this safety zone is needed
immediately to ensure there is no gap in providing the necessary safety
measures to protect personnel, general public, vessel and tows, and
mariners from hazards associated with the ongoing floodwall repair and
construction process. Publishing a NPRM would unnecessarily delay the
effective date for this rule which would be contrary to the public
interest. Delaying this project for the NPRM process would also
interfere with the contractually imposed timeline for repair of the
floodwall.
    For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the
effective date for this temporary rule to provide a full 30 days notice
is contrary to protect persons and vessels from potential safety
hazards associated with the floodwall repair and construction project.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is reestablishing the safety zone in the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, Mile Marker 35.2 to Mile Marker 35.5, bank to
bank, West of Harvey Locks. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contracted
installation of a new sheetpile floodwall on the waterward side of the
existing Larose Floodwall and construction of a new rip-rap barge
impact barrier on the waterward side of the new floodwall. This
construction and repair project is

now scheduled to continue through January 1, 2013.
    The Coast Guard determined that reestablishing the temporary safety
zone is needed during these operations. The legal basis and authorities
for this rulemaking establishing a safety zone are found in 33 U.S.C.
1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define
regulatory safety zones.
    The purpose of this safety zone is to protect life and property
during the continued construction of the floodwall in Larose in the
vicinity of GIWW Mile Marker 35.2 to Mile Marker 35.5. This
construction project poses significant safety hazards to both vessels
and mariners operating in the vicinity of GIWW Mile Maker 35.2 to Mile
Marker 35.5.

C. Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is reestablishing a temporary Safety Zone in the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Mile Marker 35.2-35.5, bank to bank, West
of Harvey locks. The temporary Safety Zone will continue through
January 1, 2013. Vessels and tows shall transit at slowest safe speed
to minimize wake and, after leaving the slowest safe speed zone,
proceed with caution to minimize interference with construction
activities.
    All work on the project is scheduled to be complete by January 1,
2013.
    Continuing through January 1, 2013, two barges will be staged on
the south side of the waterway at all times but will remain clear of
the main channel limit. The COTP Morgan City or a designated
representative will inform the public through Broadcast Notice to
Mariners of changes in the effective and enforcement periods for the
safety zone. This rule is enforceable with actual notice on July 1,
2012. Mariners can contact the contractor via VHF-FM channel 69.
    Mariners shall transit at their slowest safe speed to minimize wake
and proceed with caution while passing through the construction area.
    Charts: 11355.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    This rule creates a safety zone implementing slowest safe speed to
minimize wake. Vessels will be allowed to enter and transit through the
area. Advance notifications to the marine community regarding this
safety zone and any restrictions or closures related to the floodwall
repair and construction project will be made through Broadcast Notice
to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. The impacts on routine
navigation are expected to be minimal.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
through the Safety Zone through January 1, 2013. This Safety Zone will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for the following reasons: The zone is limited in size, is of
short duration and vessel traffic are allowed to transit through the
safety zone at slowest safe speed.
    If you are a small business entity and are significantly affected
by this regulation, please contact ENS Nicholas Jones, Marine Safety
Unit Houma, at<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 232.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will 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.

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 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 concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)
(g.), of the Instruction. This rule will be in effect until January 1,
2013, but is not expected to result in any significant adverse
environmental impact as described in NEPA.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination will be provided and made available at the docket as
indicated in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
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.

0
2. A new temporary Sec.  165.T08-0634 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0634  Safety Zone; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Mile
Marker 35.2-35.5, West of Harvey Locks, bank to bank, Lafourche Parish,
Larose, LA.

    (a) Location. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Mile Marker 35.2 to Mile
Marker 35.5, West of Harvey Locks, bank to bank, Lafourche Parish,
Larose, LA.
    (b) Effective date. This rule is effective August 3, 2012 through
January 1, 2013 and enforceable with actual notice on July 1, 2012.
    (c) Periods of Enforcement. This rule will be enforced July 1, 2012
thru January 1, 2013. The Captain of the Port Morgan City or a
designated representative will inform the public through Broadcast
Notice to Mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as
well as any changes in the planned schedule.
    (d) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into this zone should be at slowest safe speed to
minimize wake through the duration of this rule. During waterway
closures entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Morgan City.
    (2) Mariners shall transit from Mile Marker 35.2 to Mile Marker
35.5 and pass at slowest safe speed to minimize wake.
    (3) Mariners should contact the attendant tug on VHF-FM Channel 69
prior to arrival at the construction site for information regarding
available horizontal clearance and passing instructions.
    (4) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Morgan City and designated on-scene patrol
personnel. On-scene patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and
petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.
    (5) Advance notification of any anticipated waterway closures will
be made through Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to
Mariners. During a closure, vessels requiring entry into or passage
through the Safety Zone must request permission from the Captain of the
Port Morgan City, or a designated representative and passage will be
considered on a case-by-case basis. They may be contacted on VHF
Channel 11, 13, or 16, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 29, 2012.
J.C. Burton,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Morgan City, Louisiana.
[FR Doc. 2012-19009 Filed 8-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 145 (Wednesday, July 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45209-45210]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18480]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD15-30-000]

Sweetwater Authority; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a
Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and
Motions To Intervene

    On July 14, 2015, Sweetwater Authority filed a notice of intent to
construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section
30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by section 4 of the
Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA). The proposed
Perdue Water Treatment Plant Hydroelectric Project would have an
installed capacity of 700 kilowatts (kW) and would be located on San
Diego County Water Authority's existing raw water Pipeline 3, which
carries raw water to a 24-inch diameter turnout pipe which in turn
transports water into the Perdue Water Treatment Plant. The project
would be located near Spring Valley in San Diego County, California.
    Applicant Contact: Scott McClelland, Sweetwater Authority, 100
Lakeview Avenue, Spring Valley, CA 91977, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) A proposed 32-foot-long, 16-inch diameter
pipe to generating unit one and a proposed 23-foot-long, 14-inch-
diameter pipe to generating unit two; (2) a proposed powerhouse
containing two generating units with a total installed capacity of 700
kW; (3) a proposed 10-foot-long, 16-inch diameter pipe from unit one
and a proposed 23-foot-long, 16-inch-diameter pipe which merge into a
proposed 11-foot-long, 24-inch-diameter discharge pipe into the
treatment plant; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project
would have an estimated annual generating capacity of 3,784 megawatt-
hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

      Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Satisfies  (Y/
     Statutory provision             Description                N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended   The conduit the facility   Y
 by HREA.                      uses a tunnel, canal,
                               pipeline, aqueduct,
                               flume, ditch, or similar
                               manmade water conveyance
                               that is operated for the
                               distribution of water
                               for agricultural,
                               municipal, or industrial
                               consumption and not
                               primarily for the
                               generation of
                               electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as        The facility is            Y
 amended by HREA.              constructed, operated,
                               or maintained for the
                               generation of electric
                               power and uses for such
                               generation only the
                               hydroelectric potential
                               of a non-federally owned
                               conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as       The facility has an        Y
 amended by HREA.              installed capacity that
                               does not exceed 5
                               megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as      On or before August 9,     Y
 amended by HREA.              2013, the facility is
                               not licensed, or
                               exempted from the
                               licensing requirements
                               of Part I of the FPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria,
Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies
the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is
not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD15-30-000) in
the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call
toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 22, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18480 Filed 7-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68318-68319]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23867]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 516-505]

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests; Dominion Energy South
Carolina, Inc.

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Non-project use of project lands and water.
    b. Project No: 516-505.
    c. Date Filed: June 12, 2020 and supplemented on September 17,
2020.
    d. Applicant: Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Saluda Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Lake Murray of the Saluda Hydroelectric Project
located in Lexington, Newberry, Richland and Saluda counties, South
Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Raymond Ammarell, Manager, Dominion
Energy South Carolina, Inc., 220 Operation Way, MC A221, Cayce, South
Carolina, 29033; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Ms. Joy Kurtz,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: November 21, 2020.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include the docket number P-516-505. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission
approval to grant the Joint Municipal Water and Sewer Commission
(JMWSC) permission to use project lands and water within the project
boundary on Lake Murray for the construction and operation of a
component of a raw water intake facility (facility) to provide public
drinking water. The component of the facility proposed to be
constructed within the project boundary is a single screened 84' intake
pipe that would extend from the shoreline of Lake Murray into Lake
Murray itself. The remaining components of the facility would be
constructed outside of the project boundary. Once constructed and
operational, the facility would initially withdraw 10 million gallons
per day (MGD) from Lake Murray. Subsequently, JMWSC would increase
withdrawals made by the facility in 10 MGD increments over time, as
needed, up to a maximum of 50 MGD, as water demands dictate.
    l. Locations of the Application: In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides
all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents
of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page
(http://ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the
Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO INTERVENE as
applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and
the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with
the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments,
motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary
basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of
service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: October 22, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23867 Filed 10-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 13646-13647]
[DOCID:fr22mr10-135]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Meeting With Interested Persons To Discuss the Proposed AC
20-42D, Hand Fire Extinguishers for Use in Aircraft

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will hold an
informational meeting to discuss the content and comments received
regarding proposed advisory circular (AC) 20-42D, Hand Fire
Extinguishers for use in Aircraft.
    Background: Beginning in 2006, the FAA asked the International
Aircraft Systems Fire Protection Working Group (IASFPWG) to draft a
revision to the current AC 20-42C, issued on March 1984, by
incorporating updated guidance for the fire-fighting effectiveness,
selection, location, mounting and safe-use of hand fire extinguishers
in aircraft. The proposed AC also identifies three FAA approved
replacement agents for Halon 1211 and establishes an FAA approved
minimum performance standard (MPS) for halon replacement agents which
includes a hidden fire test and a seat fire/toxicity test. We also
recommend that users of halon extinguishers transition to using these
new halocarbon clean replacement agents in hand-held fire
extinguishers. The AC also explains how to gain certification for
halocarbon clean agent extinguishers intended to replace Halon 1211
hand-held extinguishers.
    Meeting Dates and Locations: The meeting is scheduled for the
afternoon of May 19 and the morning of May 20, 2010 in London, England,
and is open to all interested persons.
    If you plan to attend the meeting, please notify us via the
following e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>before March 31,
2010. Specific information pertaining to the meeting locations and
times will be forwarded to those who respond to the above e-mail
address.

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 19-20, 2010, in London, England.

ADDRESSES: The address for the specific meeting will be provided at a
later date to those individuals planning to attend.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Petrakis, Senior Aerospace
Engineer, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification
Service, Aircraft Engineering Division, Technical Programs and
Continued Airworthiness Branch, AIR-120, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, 5th Floor,
SW., Washington, DC 20024. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX (202) 385-
6475, or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC on March 10, 2010.
Susan J.M. Cabler,
Assistant Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-6145 Filed 3-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 22)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5522-5526]
[DOCID:fr03fe10-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0262; FRL-8436-9]

Spiromesifen; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY:  This regulation establishes tolerances for the inadvertent or
indirect combined residues of spiromesifen (2-oxo-3-(2,4,6-
trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate)
its enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-
oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), and its metabolites containing the 4-
hydroxymethyl moiety (4-hydroxy-3-[4-(hydroxymethyl)-2,6-
dimethylphenyl]-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), calculated as the
parent compound equivalents, in or on the following commodities from
crops grown as rotational crops: bulb vegetables. Bayer CropScience
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 3, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 5, 2010, 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: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0262. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Gaines, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a frequently updated
electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180
through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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-2008-0262 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be
mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178
on or before April 5, 2010.
    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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0262, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of November 5, 2008 (73 FR 65851) (FRL-
8385-1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
8F7398) by Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T. W. Alexander Dr.,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.607 be amended by establishing tolerances for the inadvertent or
indirect combined residues of the insecticide spiromesifen (2-oxo-3-
(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-4-yl 3,3-
dimethylbutanoate), its enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6-
trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), and its metabolites
containing the 4-hydroxymethyl moiety (4-hydroxy-3-[4-(hydroxymethyl)-
2,6-dimethylphenyl]-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), calculated as the
parent compound equivalents, in or on the following commodities from
crops grown as rotational crops: vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at 0.07
parts per million (ppm). That notice is available to the public in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was received on the
notice of filing. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in Unit
IV.C.

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 section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, 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 the petitioned-for
tolerances for inadvertent or indirect combined residues of
spiromesifen, (2-oxo-3-(2,4,6- trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-
en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate), its enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-
(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), and its
metabolites containing the 4-hydroxymethyl moiety (4-hydroxy-3-[4-
(hydroxymethyl)-2,6-dimethylphenyl]-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one),
calculated as the parent compound equivalents, on the following
commodities from crops grown as rotational crops: vegetable, bulb,
group 3-07. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
establishing tolerances 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.
    Spiromesifen shows low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal and
inhalation routes of exposure. It was neither an eye nor dermal
irritant, but showed moderate potential as a contact sensitizer. In
short- and long-term animal toxicity tests, the critical effects
observed were loss of body weight, adrenal effects (discoloration,
decrease in fine vesiculation, and the presence of cytoplasmic
eosinophilia in zona fasciculata cells), thyroid effects (increased
thyroid stimulating hormone, increased thyroxine binding capacity,
decreased T3 and T4 levels, colloidal alteration
and thyroid follicular cell hypertrophy), liver effects (increased
alkaline phosphatase, ALT and decreased cholesterol, triglycerides),
and spleen effects (atrophy, decreased spleen cell count, and increased
macrophages). Spiromesifen shows no significant developmental or
reproductive effects, is not likely to be carcinogenic based on
bioassays in rats and mice, and lacks in vivo and in vitro mutagenic
effects. Spiromesifen is not considered a neurotoxic chemical based on
the chemical's mode of action and the available data from multiple
studies, including acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by spiromesifen 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 at http://
www.regulations.gov in the document ``Spiromesifen: Human-Health Risk
Assessment for Request to Reduce Rotational Crop Plantback Interval
(PBI) for Bulb Vegetables (Crop Group 3),'' at pages 11-16 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0262 and memo, D363706, June 11, 2009.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-, intermediate-
, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing food, water, and
residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the margin of exposure
(MOE) called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
This latter value is referred to as the Level of Concern (LOC).
    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
greater than that 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 spiromesifen used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the
document ``Spiromesifen: Human-Health Risk Assessment for Request to
Reduce Rotational Crop Plantback Interval (PBI) for Bulb Vegetables
(Crop Group 3),'' at page 17 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0262.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to spiromesifen, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing spiromesifen tolerances in (40
CFR 180.607). EPA assessed dietary exposures from spiromesifen 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. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for spiromesifen; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 Cummulative Survey of Food Intake by Individuals. As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues for all
commodities except for the leafy-greens and leafy Brassica greens
subgroups (4A and 5B). The tolerance values for leafy vegetables were
adjusted upward to account for the metabolite BSN 2060-4-hydroxymethyl
(free and conjugated), which is a residue of concern in leafy
vegetables for risk assessment purposes only. EPA used data from the
metabolism studies to create a tolerance-equivalent value for the
parent spiromesifen and the BSN 2060-4-hydroxymethyl metabolite to
estimate residues in leafy vegetables. Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Model (DEEM) 7.81 default processing factors and 100% crop treated (CT)
were assumed for all commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Due to no evidence of carcinogenic effects in the
submitted rat and mouse cancer studies, spiromesifen has been
classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.'' Therefore,
an exposure assessment to evaluate cancer risk was not performed.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for spiromesifen. Tolerance level residues were used
for all food commodities except for the leafy-greens and leafy Brassica
greens subgroups (4A and 5B). For these subgroups, the residue values
were adjusted to account for the metabolite BSN 2060-4-hydroxymethyl
(free and conjugated), which is a residue of concern in leafy
vegetables for risk assessment purposes only. The Agency assumed 100%
CT for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for spiromesifen in drinking water.
Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, the
Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary
exposure analysis and risk assessment for spiromesifen in drinking
water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical,
chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of spiromesifen. 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.
    Parent spiromesifen is not likely to persist in the environment as
it readily undergoes both biotic and abiotic degradation; however, its
primary degradate, BSN2060-enol, is expected to persist. While parent
spiromesifen strongly sorbs to sediment and is not likely to be mobile,
its major degradates, BSN2060-enol and BSN2060-carboxy, do not sorb to
sediment and are expected to leach into groundwater. Spiromesifen has
limited solubility in water (130 micrograms/Liter ([micro]g/L) at
25[deg] C) and in some cases has been reported to have a practical
solubility of 40 to 50 [micro]g/L. The pesticide degrades primarily
through aerobic soil metabolism and hydrolysis; however, in clear
shallow water it will readily undergo photolysis. Field studies
indicate that spiromesifen readily dissipates with field dissipation
half-lives ranging from 2 to 10 days.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
spiromesifen for chronic exposure are 188 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 86 ppb for ground water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 188 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. Modeled estimates of drinking water
concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model.
    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).
    Spiromesifen is not registered for any specific use patterns that
would result in residential exposure.
    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 spiromesifen to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and spiromesifen does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
spiromesifen does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. 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. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to in utero and/or
postnatal exposure to spiromesifen. In the prenatal developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and in the two-generation
reproduction study in rats, developmental toxicity to the offspring
occurred at equivalent or higher doses than parental toxicity.
    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. That decision is based on the following
findings: 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. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for spiromesifen is complete and no
additional immunotoxicity or neurotoxicty testing is required. The
rationale is described below:
    a. Because spleen effects were seen in several toxicity studies,
the registrant pursued specialized immunotoxicity studies in rats and
mice that were both negative. These studies satisfy the revised 40 CFR
part 158 requirement for immunotoxicity testing. In addition, the
endpoints selected for the risk assessment are considered protective of
any possible immunotoxic effects.
    b. There is no concern for neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to
spiromesifen. Neurotoxic effects such as reduced motility, spastic
gait, increased reactivity, tremors, clonic-tonic convulsions, reduced
activity, labored breathing, vocalization, avoidance reaction,
piloerection, limp, cyanosis, squatted posture, and salivation were
observed in two studies (5-day inhalation and subchronic oral rat) at
high doses (134 and 536 milligrams/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day),
respectively). These effects were neither reflected in
neurohistopathology nor in other studies. Because these effects were
not observed in the acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies, they
were not considered reproducible. Thus, based on the chemical's mode of
action and the available data from multiple studies, the chemical is
not considered neurotoxic.
    ii. There is no evidence that spiromesifen results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study. A developmental neurotoxicity study is not required.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to spiromesifen in drinking water. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by spiromesifen.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases 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 POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
spiromesifen is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
spiromesifen from food and water will utilize 77% of the cPAD for
infants (<1 year old), the population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
    3. Short-term risk and intermediate-term risk. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Spiromesifen is not
registered for any use patterns that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the short-term aggregate risk is the sum of the
risk from exposure to spiromesifen through food and water and will not
be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Spiromesifen has been
classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.'' Spiromesifen
is not expected to pose a cancer risk.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to spiromesifen residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid
chromatography/mass spectroscopy (HPLC/MS/MS)/Method 00631/M001 and
Method 110333) is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The
method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch,
Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    No Codex, Canadian, or Mexican maximum Residue Limits have been

established for residues of spiromesifen and its metabolites on the
requested crops.

C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received from an anonymous citizen who objected to
the proposed use of spiromesifen because of the amounts of pesticides
already approved and being approved. The Agency understands the
commenter's concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that
pesticides should be banned completely. However, under the existing
legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) EPA is authorized to establish pesticide
tolerances or exemptions where persons seeking such tolerances or
exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety
standard imposed by that statute.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Vegetable, bulb, group 3-07. Due to the detection of residues on
onion after performing an extensive rotational crop study, Bayer then
proposed changing the tolerance from 0.07 ppm to 0.09 ppm. The Agency
concurred with this proposed tolerance. Using the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Maximum Residue Limits/Tolerance Harmonization
Workgroup methodology for evaluating field trial data, the Agency
determined that the requested establishment of permanent tolerances in/
on vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 proposed at 0.09 ppm should be made.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for inadvertent or indirect
combined residues of the insecticide spiromesifen, (2-oxo-3-(2,4,6-
trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate),
its enol metabolite (4-hydroxy-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-
oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), and its metabolites containing the 4-
hydroxymethyl moiety (4-hydroxy-3-[4-(hydroxymethyl)-2,6-
dimethylphenyl]-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), calculated as the
parent compound equivalents, in or on vegetable, bulb, group 3-07 at
0.09 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA 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 final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule 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 final rule 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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, 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 final rule 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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 final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    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 of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule 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: January 25, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
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. Section 180.607 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodity to the table in paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.607  Spiromesifen; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Vegetable, bulb, group 3-07..................................       0.09
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2010-2144 Filed 2-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65099-65100]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22629]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90103; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-089]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
To Amend Its Fees Schedule With Respect to Its Strategy Fee Cap

October 7, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 30, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its Fees Schedule with respect to its strategy fee cap. The
text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule in connection with
its strategy order fee cap, effective September 30, 2020.
    Effective September 1, 2020, the Exchange amended Footnote 13 to
provide that market-maker, Clearing Trading Permit Holder, JBO
participant, broker-dealer and non-Trading Permit Holder market-maker
transaction fees are capped at $0.00 for all merger, short stock
interest, reversal, conversion and jelly roll strategies executed in
open outcry on the same trading day in the same option class across all
symbols.\3\ Essentially, that rule change removed three previous
strategy fee cap amounts, and, instead, adopted a $0.00 cap for
strategies executed in open outcry in all classes (i.e., all strategies
transacted on the trading floor will be free). The Exchange proposes to
explicitly clarify in Footnote 13 that in order for a strategy
transaction to be eligible for the fee cap (i.e., not be assessed
transaction fees), TPHs must mark such strategy orders with a code
approved by the Exchange identifying the orders as eligible for the fee
cap.\4\ The Exchange also proposes to provide that strategy orders
executed during September 2020 will be eligible for the fee cap
notwithstanding not being marked, provided that a TPH submits a rebate
request with supporting documentation for such orders to the Exchange
within 3 business days of September 30, 2020 (i.e., October 5, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89831 (September 11,
2020) 85 FR 58096 (September 17, 2020) (SR-CBOE-2020-084).
    \4\ The Exchange notes that its billing system is unable to
recognize that an order is a strategy order absent such order being
explicitly marked as a strategy order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes making it clear and explicit in its fees
schedule that TPHs must mark strategy orders with a code approved by
the Exchange in order to receive the fee cap is reasonable as it
reduces the risk of orders not receiving the current fee cap that would
otherwise be entitled to it by ensuring TPHs are aware of the marking
requirement. Additionally, the clarification provides transparency in
the fees schedule and alleviates potential confusion, thereby removing
impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market
and a national market system and protecting investors and the public
interest. The Exchange also believes the marking requirement is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it applies uniformly to
all TPHs.
    The Exchange also believes it's reasonable to provide TPHs the
option of submitting a written rebate request to qualify strategy
orders executed in September 2020 for the fee cap as it provides TPHs
who did not know to mark their orders an opportunity to receive the fee
cap for strategies that would otherwise qualify. Particularly, the
Exchange notes it operates in highly competitive market. To respond to
this competitive marketplace, the Exchange adopted a fee cap of $0.00
for all strategy orders, effective September 1, 2020, which was
designed to incentivize Trading Permit Holders to increase their
strategy orders submitted to and executed on the Exchange's trading
floor, which can benefit all markets

participants. The Exchange believes that as a result of that change,
TPHs did in fact send more strategy orders to the Exchange. However,
due to the Exchange's inadvertent omission to explicitly state in the
fees schedule that such orders must be marked to qualify for the fee
cap, some TPHs were not aware of the requirement and did not mark their
orders as strategy orders at the time of entry. As such, absent the
proposed rule change, such orders submitted this month would not be
eligible to receive the fee cap, notwithstanding the fact that such
orders were strategy orders that otherwise could have qualified. The
Exchange lastly believes allowing TPHs to submit documentation in order
to qualify for the strategy order is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as it applies uniformly to all TPHs who submitted
strategy orders this month.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed change
applies uniformly to all TPHs and still provides for TPHs an
opportunity to receive the above described fee cap. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not cause an unnecessary
burden on intermarket competition because it only applies to trading on
Cboe Options. To the extent that the proposed changes make Cboe Options
a more attractive marketplace for market participants at other
exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become Cboe Options
market participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-CBOE-2020-089 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-089. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2020-089 and should be submitted on
or before November 4, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22629 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10973-10975]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04170]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0084]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for
all navigable waters within 400 yards of the Left Descending Bank (LDB)
of the Lower Mississippi River (LMR) MM 94.4 and MM 95.1, Above Head of
Passes (AHP), New Orleans, LA. This security zone is necessary to
provide security and protection for visiting personnel during the
events related to the Mardi Gras Celebrations. Entry of vessels or
persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port New Orleans (COTP) or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 p.m. on February 25, 2022, through
11:59 p.m. on March 1, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0084 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander, William A. Stewart, Sector New
Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
TFR Temporary Final Rule
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable. We must
establish this security zone by February 25, 2022 in order to provide
proper security for these visiting personnel, and we do not have
sufficient time to request and respond to comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to provide adequate security to protect the public.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port New Orleans
(COTP) has determined that the increased number of personnel
anticipated to be visiting the city during the Mardi Gras Celebration
requires certain security measures to ensure that the persons and
property are kept secure during the events. The Coast Guard determined
that a temporary security zone is needed for this and related events
that will be taking place adjacent to a portion of Lower Mississippi
River (LMR).

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a security zone from 6 p.m. on February 25,
2022 through 11:59 p.m. on March 1, 2022. The security zone will cover
all navigable waters within 400 yards of the Left Descending Bank (LDB)
of the LMR from MM 94.4 and MM 95.1, Above Head of Passes (AHP), New
Orleans, LA. This zone is necessary in order to provide to provide
waterside security for the protection of visitors attending the events
related to the Mardi Gras Celebrations. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is
a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New
Orleans. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Persons and vessels permitted to enter this security zone must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
    The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of
the enforcement times and date for this regulated area through
Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local

Notice to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins
(MSIBs), as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the security zone. Vessel traffic will be
able to safely transit around this security zone which would impact a
small designated area of the Mississippi River near New Orleans, LA for
a limited number of days and will not overly impede vessel traffic
during the period in effect. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the
zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the
zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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 rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
establishing a security zone to protect the public in a small
designated area of the Mississippi River near New Orleans, LA for a
limited number of days. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0084 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0084   Security Zone; Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: All navigable
waters of Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA within 400 yards of the
Left Descending Bank (LDB) of the Lower Mississippi River (LMR) between
Mile Marker (MM) 94.4 and MM 95.1, Above Head of Passes (AHP), New
Orleans, Louisiana.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational
control of USCG Sector New Orleans.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.33 of this part, entry into or remaining within this
regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) or designated representative.
    (2) Vessel requiring entry into this regulated area must request
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be
contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this security zone must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced 6 p.m. on
February 25, 2022, through 11:59 p.m. on March 1, 2022.
    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the enforcement times and date
for this regulated area through Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs),
Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety Information
Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

    Dated: February 18, 2022.
W.E. Watson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2022-04170 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P