[Federal Register: March 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 55)]
[Notices]
[Page 13803-13805]
[DOCID:fr23mr10-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 29176; File No. 812-13753]

SeaCo Ltd.; Notice of Application

March 17, 2010.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application under section 3(b)(2) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'').

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

SUMMARY: Summary of Application: SeaCo Ltd. (``SeaCo'') seeks an order
under section 3(b)(2) of the Act declaring it to be primarily engaged
in a business other than that of investing, reinvesting, owning,
holding or trading in securities. SeaCo is primarily engaged in the
shipping container business.
    Applicant: SeaCo.

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on Feb 9, 2009 and
amended on March 4, 2010 and March 16, 2010.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicant with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on April 8, 2010, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicant: Jonathan Adams,
SeaCo Ltd., 22 Victoria Street, P.O. Box HM 1179, Hamilton HM EX,
Bermuda.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven I. Amchan, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6826, or Julia Kim Gilmer, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicant's Representations

    1. SeaCo, a Bermuda company, was formed on August 22, 2008, to own,
operate and manage a shipping container business throughout the world.
SeaCo acquired its businesses from Sea Containers Limited (``SCL'')
through a chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.\1\ SeaCo states that in
addition to directly owning a fleet of shipping containers (and, to a
lesser degree, land containers), it also conducts its business through
its wholly-owned subsidiaries and through a controlled company, GE
SeaCo SRL (``GE SeaCo''), in a joint venture with General Electric
Capital Corporation (``GECC'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware,
Case No. 06-11156 (KJC).
    \2\ As described more fully in the application, SeaCo finances
the activities of, and collects revenues from, its other
subsidiaries through its direct, wholly-owned subsidiary, SeaCo
Finance Ltd. (``SC Finance''). While SeaCo owns its voting interest
in GE SeaCo directly, it owns its economic interest in GE SeaCo
indirectly through SC Finance and certain other intermediate,
wholly-owned subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. GE SeaCo is an operating company engaged in the business of
leasing marine containers to ocean carriers and shippers, leasing land
containers, and disposing of containers at the end of their useful
economic life. SeaCo directly owns approximately 50% of the outstanding
voting securities of GE SeaCo, which entitles it to appoint four
members of GE SeaCo's board of managers (``GE SeaCo Board''). Since
April 2006, GECC, which owns the remaining 50% of the outstanding
voting securities of GE SeaCo, has held the right to appoint five of
the nine members of the GE SeaCo Board. SeaCo states that by virtue of
its ownership stake, SeaCo controls GE SeaCo as defined in section
2(a)(9) of the Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 2(a)(9) of the Act defines ``control'' as the power
to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies
of a company, and creates a presumption that an owner of more than
25% of the outstanding voting securities of a company controls the
company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. SeaCo represents that it actively participates in the management
and affairs of GE SeaCo. SeaCo states that it conducts its shipping
container business through GE SeaCo by making decisions with GE SeaCo
about the repair, positioning, re-leasing or sale of

its containers. SeaCo also states that, working in partnership with
GECC, it provides strategic direction to management; provides policies
for retaining, recruiting and incentivizing GE SeaCo management; makes
container asset purchase decisions; reviews and sets marketing and
credit review policies; oversees information technology development and
corporate restructuring; and reviews internal control systems and
reviews and approves financial statements. SeaCo further states that
its representation on the GE SeaCo Board permits SeaCo to block certain
actions that require the approval of seven out of the nine managers
(such as the selection of auditors, the seconding of employees to GE
SeaCo from GECC and its affiliates and the conversion of GE SeaCo to a
new corporate form). Finally, SeaCo states that it has maintained
strong shareholder rights, which include the power to block various
transactions that require a super-majority vote of shareholders
(including certain sales transactions, amending the articles of
organization and increasing or decreasing the number of managers or the
maximum or minimum number of managers).

Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. SeaCo requests an order under section 3(b)(2) of the Act
declaring that it is primarily engaged in a business other than that of
investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities, and
therefore not an investment company as defined in the Act.
    2. Under section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act, an issuer is an investment
company if it is engaged or proposes to engage in the business of
investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities, and
owns or proposes to acquire investment securities having a value in
excess of 40% of the value of the issuer's total assets (exclusive of
Government securities and cash items) on an unconsolidated basis. Under
section 3(a)(2) of the Act, investment securities include all
securities except Government securities, securities issued by
employees' securities companies, and securities issued by majority-
owned subsidiaries of the owner which (a) are not investment companies,
and (b) are not relying on the exclusions from the definition of
investment company in section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Act
(``Investment Securities'').
    3. SeaCo states that its only assets on an unconsolidated basis are
its investment in its direct, wholly-owned subsidiary, SC Finance, and
its holdings of the outstanding voting securities of GE SeaCo and
another operating company, GE SeaCo America.\4\ SC Finance may rely on
section 3(c)(1) of the Act because it indirectly holds the economic
interest in GE SeaCo, and such interest may be deemed to be Investment
Securities. Therefore, SeaCo's assets on an unconsolidated basis could
be deemed to consist almost entirely of Investment Securities. Because
more than 40% of SeaCo's total unconsolidated assets may consist of
Investment Securities, SeaCo may be deemed an investment company within
the meaning of section 3(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ GE SeaCo America employs United States staff that handle
operations, leasing and end-of-useful-life disposal of certain
United States based containers for GE SeaCo. SeaCo directly holds
40% of GE SeaCo America's outstanding voting securities and operates
less than 3% of its shipping container business through GE SeaCo
America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Rule 3a-1 under the Act provides an exemption from the
definition of investment company if, on a consolidated basis with
wholly-owned subsidiaries, no more than 45% of an issuer's total assets
(exclusive of Government securities and cash items) consist of, and no
more than 45% of its net income after taxes over the last four fiscal
quarters combined is derived from, securities other than: Government
securities, securities issued by employees' securities companies, and
securities of certain majority-owned subsidiaries and companies
controlled primarily by the issuer. SeaCo states that due to GECC's
right to appoint an additional manager to the GE SeaCo Board, SeaCo is
unable to rely on rule 3a-1 because it does not primarily control GE
SeaCo.
    5. Section 3(b)(2) of the Act provides that, notwithstanding
section 3(a)(1)(C), the Commission may issue an order declaring an
issuer to be primarily engaged in a business other than that of
investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities
directly, through majority-owned subsidiaries, or controlled companies
conducting similar types of businesses. SeaCo submits that it qualifies
for an order under section 3(b)(2) of the Act because it is primarily
engaged in the shipping container business through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries and through its controlled company, GE SeaCo. In
determining whether an issuer is ``primarily engaged'' in a non-
investment company business under section 3(b)(2), the Commission
considers the following factors: (a) The company's historical
development, (b) its public representation of policy, (c) the
activities of its officers and directors, (d) the nature of its present
assets, and (e) the sources of its present income.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Tonopah Mining Company of Nevada, 26 SEC 426, 427 (1947).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Historical Development. SeaCo states that it is a Bermuda
company formed on August 22, 2008 specifically for the primary purpose
of engaging in the shipping container business through GE SeaCo. SeaCo
states that it does not treat its ownership of GE SeaCo's outstanding
voting securities as investment assets but as the mechanism through
which SeaCo operates, conducts and controls its shipping container
business. SeaCo's interest in GE SeaCo arose from SCL's historical
interest in GE SeaCo, which was transferred to SeaCo as part of a
chapter 11 plan of reorganization. SeaCo does not intend to invest in
any entity as a passive investment or in portfolio securities for
short-term profits and will not be a ``special situation investment
company.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ SCL also is not and was not a ``special situation investment
company.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Public Representations of Policy. SeaCo states that it has never
held itself out as an investment company within the meaning of the Act,
and has not made any public representations that would indicate that it
is in any business other than that of operating a shipping container
business. With respect to GE SeaCo, SeaCo has and intends to
consistently report its strategy as participating actively in its
operations through its GE SeaCo Board representatives, shareholder
rights, and substantial information rights.
    c. Activities of Officers and Directors. SeaCo states that the
majority of its board of directors and executive management team has
significant experience in the shipping container industry and/or
managing turnarounds in the operations of companies emerging from
bankruptcy. SeaCo states that none of these individuals spends, or
proposes to spend, any material amount of time on behalf of SeaCo or GE
SeaCo in activities which involve investing, reinvesting, owning,
holding, or trading in securities, directly or indirectly through
others. SeaCo anticipates that any time spent on such activities by
these individuals would be de minimis. SeaCo further states that the
members of its board of directors (which include four directors who
also serve on the GE SeaCo Board), spend between 20-40% of their time
on monitoring the performance of GE SeaCo operations, 7-10% of their
time making decisions regarding the owned container fleet, 20-30% of
their time on investor communications, 13-15% of their time

on management oversight and 20-25% of their time providing strategic
direction. SeaCo states that its only executive officer, the Chief
Executive Officer, does not spend his time on activities which involve
investing, reinvesting, owning, holding or trading in securities, and
its three employees split their time between accountancy, contract
management, billing and collections, investor communications and office
administration. SeaCo does not, directly or indirectly, employ
securities analysts or engage in the trading of securities for
speculative or other purposes.
    d. Nature of Assets. As a holding company, SeaCo asserts that its
financial data consolidated with its wholly-owned subsidiaries provides
a more accurate picture of its business. SeaCo states that, as of June
30, 2009, its interests in GE SeaCo represented 50% of its total
assets, consolidated with its wholly-owned subsidiaries. Of SeaCo's
remaining total assets, consolidated with its wholly-owned
subsidiaries, SeaCo's owned container fleet represented 26%, amounts
receivable from container leasing represented 7%, and other assets
consisting mainly of deferred finance charges represented 2%. Treating
the interests in GE SeaCo as an operating asset, SeaCo's remaining
Investment Securities constituted less than 15% of SeaCo's total
assets, consolidated with its wholly-owned subsidiaries.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Of SeaCo's remaining Investment Securities, consolidated
with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, restricted cash to service the
SeaCo Group's loan facilities represented 10%, cash and cash
equivalents for operational purposes represented 2%, securities
issued by GE SeaCo America represented 2%, and the amount due from
SCL arising out of bankruptcy process represented 1%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    e. Sources of Income. SeaCo states that on an unconsolidated basis
it has no or minimal income from its ownership of SC Finance, which
receives revenues from SeaCo's other subsidiaries. Applicant states
that revenues constitute the primary source of its income. On a
consolidated basis with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, SeaCo states
that, for the period ending June 30, 2009, its proportionate share of
the revenues of GE SeaCo represented 32%, revenues on the owned
container fleet managed by GE SeaCo represented 67%, and interest
income represented 1%, of its total income.
    6. SeaCo thus submits that it qualifies for an order under section
3(b)(2) of the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-6303 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 12616]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06360]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-0803]

Advisory Committee; Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety
Standards Committee; Renewal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; renewal of advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
renewal of the Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards
Committee (Committee) by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the
Commissioner). The Commissioner has determined that it is in the public
interest to renew the Committee for an additional 2 years beyond the
charter expiration date. The new charter will be in effect until
December 24, 2020.

DATES: Authority for the Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety
Standards Committee would have expired on December 24, 2018, unless the
Commissioner formally determined that renewal is in the public
interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricio Garcia, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G610, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-6875, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by
the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11
and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the
renewal of the Committee. The Committee is a non-discretionary Federal
advisory committee established to provide advice and consultation to
the Commissioner. The Commissioner of Food and Drugs is charged with
the administration of the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act
of 1968. This act creates the Committee and requires the Commissioner
to consult with the Committee before prescribing standards for
radiation emissions from electronic products. This Committee provides
advice and consultation to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs on the
technical feasibility, reasonableness, and practicability of
performance standards for electronic products to control the emission
of radiation from such products and may recommend electronic product
radiation safety standards to the Commissioner for consideration.
    The Committee shall consist of a core of 15 voting members,
including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected by the
Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in the
fields of science or engineering applicable to electronic product
radiation safety. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping
terms of up to 4 years. Terms of more than 2 years are contingent upon
the renewal of the Committee by appropriate action prior to its
expiration. The core of voting members will include five members
selected from governmental agencies, including State and Federal
Governments, five members from the affected industries, and five
members from the general public, of which at least one shall be a
representative of organized labor. A quorum shall consist of 10
members, of which at least 3 shall be from the general public, 3 from
the government agencies, and 3 from the affected industries.
    Further information regarding the most recent charter and other
information can be found at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Radiation-EmittingProducts/TechnicalElectronicProductRadiationSafetyStandardsCommittee/default.htm
or by contacting the Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). In light of the fact that no change has been made
to the committee name or description of duties, no amendment will be
made to 21 CFR 14.100.
    This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory
committees, please visit us at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    Dated: March 27, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
[FR Doc. 2019-06360 Filed 4-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1496-1497]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP95-408-067]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance
Filing

January 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 29, 2006, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff
sheets with a proposed effective date of February 1, 2007:

Eighty-first Revised Sheet No. 25
Eighty-first Revised Sheet No. 26
Eightieth Revised Sheet No. 27
Sixty-eighth Revised Sheet No. 28
Tenth Revised Sheet No. 28B
Twenty-second Revised Sheet No. 29

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 29A
Thirty-fifth Revised Sheet No. 30A

    Columbia states that this filing is being submitted pursuant to an
order issued September 15, 1999 by the Commission approving an
uncontested settlement that resolves environmental cost recovery issues
in the above referenced proceeding. Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation, 88 FERC ] 61,217 (1999). The settlement established
environmental cost recovery through unit components of base rates, all
as more fully set forth in the settlement agreement filed April 5,
1999.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-290 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20915-20916]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07574]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0611]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a New Approval of Information Collection: FAA Advisory
Circular 120-119, Voluntary Safety Management System for Other
Regulated Entities Transporting Dangerous Goods by Air

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a new information collection.
The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following collection of information was published on
June 8, 2021. The collection involves entities that voluntarily follow
the guidance in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 120-119, Voluntary Safety
Management System (SMS) for Other Regulated Entities Transporting
Dangerous Goods by Air, on how to use the SMS principles included in
FAA regulations, as a basis to develop and implement a voluntary SMS
program and how to submit such a voluntary program to the FAA's Office
of Hazardous Materials Safety (AXH) for acceptance. Information
received from the first collection will be used to determine
consistency with FAA SMS regulations. With the exception of a one-time
submission of an implementation plan, the data will not be submitted to
the FAA. The records for Safety Policy, Safety Risk Management, and
Safety Assurance processes, training, and communications are kept under
Safety Promotion and will be kept by the organization and used in its
SMS.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 9, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected], or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW, Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Giordani, Security and
Hazardous Materials Safety, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (AXH-
002), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20591;<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: To be determined.
    Title: Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for
Comments; Clearance of a New Approval of Information Collection: FAA
Advisory Circular 120-119, Voluntary Safety Management System for Other
Regulated Entities Transporting Dangerous Goods by Air.
    Form Numbers: N/A.
    Type of Review: Clearance of a new information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on June 8, 2021 (86 FR 30514). Advisory Circular (AC) No.
120-119 provides information on how entities subject to the regulatory
requirements of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts
171-180 (e.g., entities performing functions such as, but not limited
to, handling or shipping of dangerous goods by air and hereinafter
referred to as ``other regulated entities'') may choose to implement
voluntarily a Safety Management System (SMS) as described in Title 14
CFR, part 5--Safety Management Systems.
    AC 120-119 addresses general SMS principles and explains certain
regulatory requirements outlined in 14 CFR part 5. While part 5 does
not apply

to voluntary SMS programs, it describes the general SMS framework and
serves as a non-binding basis for the development and implementation of
voluntary SMS programs. The AC provides guidance to organizations on
how to use SMS principles included in part 5 as a basis to develop and
implement a voluntary SMS program and how to submit such a voluntary
program to the FAA's Office of Hazardous Materials Safety (AXH) for
acceptance.
    Each organization that implements a voluntary SMS program would
collect and analyze safety data and maintain training and
communications records for its SMS. Data and records are essential for
an SMS. Any organization that volunteers for this process would
maintain records of SMS outputs, training records, and communications
materials used to promote safety. An organization may create a gap
analysis to identify what already exists within that organization and
what needs to be created to complete the SMS implementation plan. The
organization's implementation plan is submitted once to FAA for
approval. As needed, other information may be requested or submitted as
part of ongoing SMS evaluation.
    Respondents: The FAA estimates that a total of three companies will
voluntarily implement an SMS.
    Frequency: The FAA assumes that the implementation plan is a one-
time burden that takes place over three (3) years for organizations
that choose to comply.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 6,680 hours reporting and
170 hours recordkeeping.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 20,040 hours reporting and 510 hours
recordkeeping.
    For the estimated total annual burden, the prior notice contained a
miscalculation of 6,120 hours of recordkeeping. This notice corrects
that miscalculation to 510 hours of recordkeeping.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 5, 2022.
Daniel Benjamin Supko,
Executive Director, FAA, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 2022-07574 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7360-7361]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02343]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0068]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Pipeline Installation; Anclote River, Tampa Bay,
Tarpon Springs, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within the Anclote River, Tampa Bay, Tarpon Springs,
FL, within 200 yards from the Dredge DIAMOND 6 and Tug LADY LAFON,
effectively closing the waterway to all traffic. The safety zone is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards created by dredge work and installation of the
pipeline. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port St.
Petersburg.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. on February 6, 2023, through
7 p.m. on February 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0068 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 Marine Science Technician First Class Regina L. Cuevas,
Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone
(813) 228-2191, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
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. The Coast
Guard lacks sufficient time to provide for a comment period and then
consider those comments before issuing the rule since this rule is
needed by February 6, 2023. It would be contrary to the public interest
since immediate action is necessary to protect the safety of the
public, and vessels transiting the waters of the Anclote River and
Tampa Bay.
    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 for the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph.

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 St
Petersburg (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with
dredging and pipeline installation starting February 6, 2023, will be a
safety concern for anyone within 200 yards of the Dredge DIAMOND 6 and
Tug LADY LAFON. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone
while the dredge pipe is installed.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 6 a.m. on February 6,
2023, until 7 p.m. on February 10, 2023. The safety zone will cover all
navigable waters of Anclote River, within 200 yards of the Dredge
DIAMOND 6 and Tug LADY LAFON, which will be in the approximate position
28[deg]9'21.51'' N, 82[deg]45'58.68'' W. While the zone will be in
place for two days, it will only be enforced for approximately five
hours, during the pipe installation. The duration of the zone is
intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in
these navigable waters while the dredge pipe installation is occurring.
No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

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 scope of the safety zone. The zone is limited in size, location,
and duration as it will cover all navigable waters of the Anclote River
and Tampa Bay within 200 yards of the Dredge DIAMOND 6 and Tug LADY
LAFON while they are installing a dredge pipe. The zone is limited in
scope as vessel traffic may seek permission from the COTP to enter the
zone. It is limited in duration in that it will only be enforced for
approximately five hours while the pipe is being installed. Moreover,
the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM
marine channel 16 about the safety 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
safety 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 a
safety zone lasting approximately 5 hours during a dredge pipe
installation in the Anclote River. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) 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, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T07-0068 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0068  Safety Zone; Pipeline Testing; Anclote River, Tampa
Bay, Gibsonton, FL.

    (a) Location. The following regulated area is a safety zone: All
navigable waters of Anclote River, within 200 yards of the Dredge
DIAMOND 6 and Tug LADY LAFON in the approximate position 28[deg]09'23''
N, 082[deg]45'58'' W.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port St. Petersburg in the enforcement of the regulated
area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port St.
Petersburg or a designated representative.
    (2) Designated representatives may control vessel traffic
throughout the enforcement area as determined by the prevailing
conditions.
    (3) Persons and vessels may request authorization to enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated areas by contacting
the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16. If
authorization is granted by the Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a
designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port St. Petersburg or a designated representative.
    (d) Effective and enforcement period. This section is effective
from February 6, 2023, through February 10, 2023. It will only be
enforced during the installation of a dredge pipe, and that enforcement
period will be announced by via VHF radio on channel 16.

    Dated: January 27, 2023.
Michael P. Kahle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port St. Petersburg.
[FR Doc. 2023-02343 Filed 2-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 89)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25518-25524]
[DOCID:fr07my08-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0275; FRL-8357-3]

Chlorantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
chlorantraniliprole in or on apple, wet pomace; brassica, head and
stem, subgroup 5A; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B; cotton, gin
byproduct; cotton, hulls; cotton undelinted seed; fruit, pome, group
11; fruit, stone, group 12; grape; grape, raisin; potato; vegetable,
cucurbit, group 9; vegetable, fruiting, group 8; vegetable, leafy,
except brassica, group 4; milk; meat; meat byproduct; fat. E.I. DuPont
de Nemours and Company requested this tolerance under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This regulation also removes existing
time-limited tolerances for residues of chlorantraniliprole in or on
apple; apple, wet pomace; celery; cucumber; lettuce, head; lettuce,
leaf; pear; pepper; spinach; squash; tomato and watermelon and modifies
40 CFR 180.628 by removing the third column (Expiration/Revocation
Date) from the table in paragraph (a), since it is no longer
applicable. In addition, this action establishes a time-limited
tolerance for residues of chlorantraniliprole in or on rice in response
to the approval of a specific exemption under section 18 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorizing the use
the insecticide on rice to control rice water weevil, Lissorhoptrus
oryzophilus. This regulation establishes a maximum permissible level of
residues of chlorantraniliprole in this food commodity. The time-
limited tolerance expires and is revoked on December 31, 2011.

DATES: This regulation is effective May 7, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before July 7, 2008, 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-2007-0275. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kable Bo Davis, 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: davis.kable @epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural 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), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
    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 an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket 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 pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 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-2007-0275 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 July 7, 2008.
    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-2007-0275, 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'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 April 30, 2007 (72 FR 21263) (FRL-8124-
5), 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
7F7181) by E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, DuPont Crop Protection,
1090 Elkton Road, Newark, DE 19711. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.628 be amended by exempting the requirement of tolerances for
residues of the insecticide chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-
methyl-6-[(methylamino) carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1 H-
pyrazole-5-carboxamide, in or on commodities. That notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company,
the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, http://
www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, the Agency
concluded that the request for exemption of tolerances for
chlorantraniliprole is not appropriate. The appropriate tolerance
levels for chlorantraniliprole residues in or on pending crops should
be established as follows: Apple, wet pomace at 0.60 ppm, brassica,
head and stem, subgroup 5A at 4.0 ppm, brassica, leafy greens, subgroup
5B at 11 ppm, cotton, gin byproduct at 30 ppm, cotton, hulls at 0.40
ppm, cotton, undelinted seed at 0.30 ppm, fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.30
ppm, fruit, stone, group 12 at 1.0 ppm, grape at 1.2 ppm, grape, raisin
at 2.5 ppm, potato at 0.01 ppm, vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.25
ppm, vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.70 ppm, vegetable, leafy, except
brassica, group 4 at 13 ppm, milk at 0.01 ppm, meat at 0.01 ppm, meat
byproducts at 0.01 ppm and fat at 0.01 ppm.
    EPA is also establishing a time-limited tolerance for residues of
the insecticide chlorantraniliprole in or on rice, grain at 0.10 ppm
and rice, straw at 0.25 ppm. This tolerance expires and is revoked on
December 31, 2011. The Agency is establishing this time-limited
tolerance in response to two specific exemption requests under FIFRA
section 18 on behalf of the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and
Forestry and the Texas Department of Agriculture for emergency use of
chlorantraniliprole on rice seed to control rice water weevil,
Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus.
    According to Louisiana, the current emergency situation with
respect to rice water weevil management has arisen primarily from the
continuing, and probably increasing, practice of cultivating crawfish
in ponds in close proximity to rice fields in southern Louisiana and
the phase-out of pyrethroid seed treatments as an alternative for
control. All of the alternative insecticides, the liquid and fertilizer
impregnated pyrethroid formulations, currently registered and available
for use against weevil in Louisiana are toxic to crawfish and have a
very short treatment window which frequently precludes their timely use
due to unfavorable weather and insufficient availability of aerial
applicators. Another constraint is that these insecticides only offer
protection for 4 to 7 days, while adult weevil movement into flooded
rice fields may occur over a several week period. Additionally, drift
of foliar applied liquid insecticide alternatives to adjacent crawfish
ponds have resulted in numerous crawfish kills. The Applicant claims
that rice water weevil populations have historically plagued the state
and that registered insecticides for this use and/or cultural practices
are inadequate.
    According to Texas, the current emergency situation with respect to
rice water weevil management has arisen primarily from the continuing,
and probably increasing, practice of cultivating fish (catfish and
hybrid stripped bass) and crawfish for

commercial production in ponds in close proximity to rice fields and
the loss of a registered seed treatment as an alternative for control.
A great majority of the fish and crawfish ponds are close enough to
rice fields to be affected by the management practices used in rice.
All insecticides currently registered for use against weevil in Texas
are toxic to fish and crawfish, and also are subject to the same timing
and logistical challenges noted by Louisiana. The Applicant claims that
the registered insecticides for this use and/or cultural practices are
inadequate to control rice water weevil.
    As part of its assessment of the emergency exemption request, EPA
assessed the potential risks presented by the residues of
chlorantraniliprole in or on rice. In doing so, EPA considered the
safety standard in section 408(b)(2) of FFDCA, and EPA decided that the
necessary time-limited tolerance under section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA would
be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18.
Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in
order to address the urgent non-routine situation and to ensure that
the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing this time-limited
tolerance without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided
in section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA. Although, this time-limited tolerance
expires and is revoked on December 31, 2011, under section 408(l)(5) of
FFDCA, residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amount specified
in the tolerance remaining in or on rice after that date will not be
unlawful, provided the pesticide is applied in a manner that was lawful
under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a level that was authorized
by this time-limited tolerance at the time of application. EPA will
take action to revoke this time-limited tolerance earlier if any
experience with, scientific data, or other relevant information on this
pesticide indicates that the residues are not safe.
    Because this time-limited tolerance is being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
chlorantraniliprole meets EPA's registration requirements for use on
rice or whether a permanent tolerance for this use would be
appropriate. Under this circumstance, EPA does not believe that the
time-limited tolerance serves as a basis for registration of
chlorantraniliprole by a State for special local needs under FIFRA
section 24(c). Nor does the time-limited tolerance serve as the basis
for any State other than Louisiana and Texas to use this pesticide on
this crop under section 18 of FIFRA without following all provisions of
EPA's regulations implementing FIFRA section 18 as identified in 40 CFR
part 166.

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....'' These provisions were added to FFDCA by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance
for residues of chlorantraniliprole on apple, wet pomace at 0.60 ppm,
brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at 4.0 ppm, brassica, leafy
greens, subgroup 5B at 11 ppm, cotton, gin byproduct at 30 ppm, cotton,
hulls at 0.40 ppm, cotton, undelinted seed at 0.30 ppm, fruit, pome,
group 11 at 0.30 ppm, fruit, stone, group 12 at 1.0 ppm, grape at 1.2
ppm, grape, raisin at 2.5 ppm, potato at 0.01 ppm, vegetable, cucurbit,
group 9 at 0.25 ppm, vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.70 ppm,
vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4 at 13 ppm, milk at 0.01 ppm,
meat at 0.01 ppm, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm and fat at 0.01 ppm as
well as the time-limited tolerance for residues of chlorantraniliprole
on rice, grain at 0.10 pp and rice, straw at 0.25 ppm. EPA's assessment
of exposures and risks associated with establishing the tolerance
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.
    Chlorantraniliprole has no significant acute toxicity via the oral,
dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. The LD50 for oral
and dermal acute exposure is <=5,000 mg/kg/day and the LC50
for acute inhalation exposure is <=5.1 mg/L. This substance is not an
eye or skin irritant and does not cause skin sensitization. In short-
term studies, the most consistent effects are those associated with non
adverse pharmacological response to the xenobiotic, induction of liver
enzymes and subsequent increase in liver weights. Chlorantraniliprole
is not genotoxic, neurotoxic, immunotoxic, carcinogenic, or
teratogenic. Furthermore, it is not uniquely toxic to the conceptus as
there were no maternal or fetal effects in studies conducted in rats
and rabbits. Based on the results of a 28-day dermal study in rats, as
well as the dermal LD50 study, chlorantraniliprole has
relatively low dermal toxicity.
    Overall, chlorantraniliprole exhibits minimal mammalian toxicity
after long-term exposure. The only consistent observation in the
mammalian toxicology studies is an increased degree of
microvesiculation of the adrenal cortex after dermal or dietary
administration of chlorantraniliprole. Based on the lack of adverse
effect on the function of the adrenal gland, this observation was
considered treatment related, but not ``adverse.''
    In addition to the adrenal effects, liver effects (e.g., increased
liver weight and induction of Cytochrome P450 enzymes) were reported in
the 90-day oral subchronic studies across species and only at the
highest dose tested (HDT) (<1,000 mg/kg/day). While in the subchronic
studies, these effects were considered adaptive, the liver effects were
more pronounced in the 18-month chronic mouse study at the HDT.
Increased eosinophilic foci (preneoplastic foci) were noted in male
mice at 935 mg/kg/day and liver hypertrophy and weight increase were
evident at the next lower dose (158 mg/kg/day), but progression to
tumors was not apparent for these effects. Therefore, the eosinophilic
foci appear to be an adverse effect only seen in the HDT and was graded
minimal in severity.

    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by chlorantraniliprole 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. The referenced document is available in the docket
established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES, and is
identified as EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0275 in that docket.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from 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) is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the LOC 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
risks by comparing aggregate 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 LOC by all
applicable UFs. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term risks are
evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. 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/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for chlorantraniliprole
used for human risk assessment can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document Chlorantraniliprole (DPX-E2Y45): Human
Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on Pome fruit, Stone fruit,
Leafy vegetables, Brassica leafy vegetables, Cucurbit vegetables,
Fruiting vegetables, Cotton, Grapes, Potatoes, Rice, Turf and
Ornamentals at pages 22-24 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0275.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to chlorantraniliprole, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing chlorantraniliprole
tolerances in (40 CFR 180.628). EPA assessed dietary exposures from
chlorantraniliprole 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 chlorantraniliprole;
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 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed all foods for
which there are tolerances were treated and contain tolerance-level
residues.
    iii. Cancer. Because chlorantraniliprole has been classified as a
``not likely human carcinogen'', a quantitative exposure assessment
relative to cancer risk is not required.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for chlorantraniliprole in drinking water.
Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental
fate characteristics of chlorantraniliprole. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/
index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of
chlorantraniliprole for acute exposures are estimated to be 26.862
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 1.06 ppb for ground
water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 3.650 ppb for
surface water and 1.06 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. Because no acute hazard,
attributable to a single dose, was identified; acute dietary risk was
not assessed. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration value 3.650 ppb was used to access the contribution to
drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Chlorantraniliprole is proposed for use on the following
residential non-dietary sites: Turfgrass and ornamental plants.
Although residential exposure could occur, due to the lack of toxicity
identified for short- and intermediate-term durations via the relevant
routes of exposure, no risk is expected from these exposures.
    Additional information on residential exposure assumptions can be
found at www.regulations.gov (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0275, pages 36
through 37).
    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.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to chlorantraniliprole and
any other substances and chlorantraniliprole does not appear to produce
a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of
this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that
chlorantraniliprole has 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 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. In applying
this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X when
reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or, if
reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA
safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special
FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There were no effects on
fetal growth or post-natal development up to the limit dose of 1,000
mg/kg/day in rats or rabbits in the developmental or 2-generation
reproduction studies. Additionally, there were no treatment related
effects on the numbers of litters, fetuses (live or dead), resorptions,
sex ratio, or post-implantation loss and no effects on fetal body
weights, skeletal ossification, and external, visceral, or skeletal
malformations or variations.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicology database for chlorantraniliprole is complete for
the purposes of this risk assessment and the characterization of
potential pre- and postnatal risks to infants and children.
    ii. No susceptibility was identified in the toxicological database,
and there are no residual uncertainties re: pre-and/or postnatal
exposure.
    iii. There are no treatment-related neurotoxic findings in the
acute and subchronic oral neurotoxicity studies in rats.
    iv. The exposure assessment is protective: The dietary food
exposure assessment utilizes tolerance level residues and 100% crop
treated information for all commodities; the drinking water assessment
utilizes values generated by models and associated modeling parameters
which are designed to provide conservative, health protective, high-end
estimates of water concentrations. By using these screening-level
exposure assessments, the chronic dietary (food and drinking water)
risk is not underestimated.
    v. Although residential exposure is expected over the short- and
possibly intermediate-term (via the dermal and/or incidental oral
route), there is no hazard expected via these routes/durations, and
therefore no risk for these scenarios.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional
cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and long-
term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to
ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is
not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. No acute risk is expected because no acute hazard,
attributable to a single dose, was identified.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
chlorantraniliprole from food and water will utilize <1% of the cPAD
for the population group children 1-2 years (the highest exposed
subpopulation). Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure
to residues of chlorantraniliprole is not expected.
    3. Short-term/intermediate risk. Short-term aggregate and
intermediate-term exposure takes into account residential exposure plus
chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background
exposure level).
    There is potential for short- and intermediate-term postapplication
dermal (adults and children) and incidental oral (children only)
exposure to chlorantrantiliprole. However, due to the lack of toxicity
via dermal route, as well as the lack of toxicity over the acute,
short- and intermediate-term via the oral route - no risk is expected
from these exposures. Inhalation exposure is not expected due to the
low vapor pressure of chlorantraniliprole (so applied/deposited
residues are not expected to volatilize into the air).
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Chlorantraniliprole
has been classified as a ``not likely human carcinogen.'' It is not
expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    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 chlorantraniliprole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The methods 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

    There are no international residue limits that affect the Agency's
recommendations at this time. There are no Canadian, CODEX or Mexican
maximum residue limits (MRLs) for chlorantraniliprole.
    Secondary reasons that contribute to harmonization difficulties
include use pattern differences (for one crop, application rates and
formulations may be different in different countries due to different
pest pressures/conditions).

C. Response to Comments

    There were no comments received in response to the notice of
filing.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of
chlorantraniliprole, 3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)
carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1 H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide,
in or on apple, wet pomace at 0.60 ppm, brassica, head and stem,
subgroup 5A at 4.0 ppm, brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 11 ppm,
cotton, gin byproduct at 30 ppm, cotton, hulls at 0.40 ppm, cotton,
undelinted seed at 0.30 ppm, fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.30 ppm, fruit,
stone, group 12 at 1.0 ppm, grape at 1.2 ppm, grape, raisin at 2.5 ppm,
potato at 0.01 ppm, vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 at 0.25 ppm,
vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.70 ppm, vegetable, leafy, except
brassica, group 4 at 13 ppm, milk at 0.01 ppm, meat at 0.01 ppm, meat
byproducts at 0.01 ppm and fat at 0.01 ppm. In addition, this
regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for residues of
chlorantraniliprole in or on rice, grain at 0.10 ppm and rice, straw at
0.25 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 rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this rule is not subject to Executive Order
13211, 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 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This
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: April 24, 2008.
Debra Edwards,
Director, 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 180.628 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a)
and by adding text to paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.628  Chlorantraniliprole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, wet pomace....................................               0.60
Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A.................                4.0
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B..................                 11
Cattle, fat..........................................               0.01
Cattle, meat.........................................               0.01
Cattle, meat byproducts..............................               0.01
Cotton, gin byproduct................................                 30
Cotton, hulls........................................               0.40
Cotton, undelinted seed..............................               0.30
Fruit, pome, group 11................................               0.30
Fruit, stone, group 12...............................                1.0
Goat, fat............................................               0.01
Goat, meat...........................................               0.01
Goat, meat byproduct.................................               0.01
Grape................................................                1.2
Grape, raisin........................................                2.5
Horse, fat...........................................               0.01
Horse, meat..........................................               0.01
Horse, meat byproduct................................               0.01
Milk.................................................               0.01
Potato...............................................               0.01
Sheep, fat...........................................               0.01
Sheep, meat..........................................               0.01
Sheep, meat byproduct................................               0.01
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9.........................               0.25
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8.........................               0.70
Vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4...........                 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. A time-limited tolerance is
established for the residues of the insecticide chlorantraniliprole, 3-
bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino) carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-
chloro-2-pyridinyl)-1 H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide, in connection with use
of the pesticide under a section 18 emergency exemption granted by EPA.
This tolerance will expire and is revoked on the date specified in the
following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Parts per
          Commodity              million     Expiration/Revocation Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rice, grain..................         0.10                      12/31/11
Rice, straw..................         0.25                      12/31/11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-9950 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: July 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 126)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38019-38021]
[DOCID:fr01jy10-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0457]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Fixed Mooring Balls, South of Barbers Pt. Harbor
Channel, Oahu, HI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the placement of six fixed mooring balls in an area
south of Barbers Pt. Harbor Channel, the Coast Guard is establishing a
temporary safety zone around the mooring balls. This safety zone is
needed to protect persons and vessels from safety hazards associated
with navigation in the area of the mooring balls. Entry into this zone
would be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of
the Port Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. on July 1, 2010 through 6
p.m. on July 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0457 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0457 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Lieutenant Commander Marcella Granquist, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Honolulu, telephone 808-
842-2600, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this 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. The Coast Guard finds that it would be
impracticable to publish a NPRM with respect to this rule because the
event would occur before the rulemaking process could be completed.

Basis and Purpose

    In 2010, Fourth Mate Productions formally proposed placing six
fixed mooring balls approximately 2,500 yards south of Barbers Point
channel buoy 2. The mooring balls will be placed in a 133-yard
(121-meter) circular design for preapproved vessel mooring purposes.
For ease of identification, these mooring balls will be monitored by a
small boat during daylight hours and will be illuminated with a single
flashing white light on each of the six mooring balls during non-
daylight hours. With the State of Hawaii's permission and after pre-
planning meetings with various members of the maritime community
including environmental officials, a safety zone was determined to be
appropriate by the Captain of the Port (COTP) to ensure safe transit in
and around the fixed mooring balls by vessels and the general public.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary 400-yard (366-meter)
radius safety zone around position 21[deg]18'35.00'' N,
158[deg]07'33.00'' W, approximately 2,500 yards south of Barbers Point
Harbor channel buoy 2, Oahu, Hawaii. Entry of persons, vessels
or other watercraft into this temporary safety zone is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. This safety zone extends
from the surface of the water to the ocean floor. All vessels are
requested to pass to the west, or makai side, of the Safety Zone to
avoid grounding on the shallow and live coral reef area between the
safety zone and the shoreline. Vessels desiring to transit through the
safety zone can request permission by contacting the Honolulu Captain
of the Port at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>. The safety zone will be
enforced from 6 a.m. on July 1, through 6 p.m. on July 21, 2010. The
COTP may cease enforcement of the zone earlier if conditions warrant.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by
the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant
because vessels will be able to transit around the safety zone. Vessels
may also transit through the safety zone with permission from the COTP.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. While the safety zone is being enforced, vessels will
be able to transit around the safety zone. Furthermore, vessels will be
allowed to transit through the temporary safety zone if permission to
enter is granted from the COTP.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

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.

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 would not create an environmental
risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect
children.

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

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)(h), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a
safety zone. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is amending
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. 1226, 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. Add Sec.  165.T14-204 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T14-204  Safety Zone; Fixed Mooring Balls, South of Barbers
Pt Harbor Channel, Oahu, Hawaii.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters
contained within a 400-yard radius (366-meter) radius around position
21[deg]18'35.00'' N., 158[deg]07'33.00'' W. This position is
approximately 2,500 yards south of Barbers Point Harbor channel buoy
2, Oahu, Hawaii. This Safety Zone will have six (6), 24-inch
white mooring balls with a single blue reflective stripe. The mooring
balls will be placed 133 yards (121 meters) in a circular design for
preapproved vessel mooring purposes. This safety zone extends from the
surface of the water to the ocean floor. These coordinates are based
upon the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coast Survey,
Pacific Ocean, Oahu, Hawaii, chart 19357.
    (b) Regulations. (1) Entry into or remaining in the safety zone
described in paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Honolulu zone.
    (2) Persons desiring to transit the safety zone may contact the
Honolulu Captain of the Port on VHF channel 81A (157.075 MHz), VHF
channel 16 (156.800 MHz), or at telephone numbers 1-808-563-9906 or
808-842-2600 to seek permission to transit the area with a designated
escort vessel. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must
comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her
designated representative. All other vessels are requested to pass to
the west, or makai side, of the Safety Zone to avoid grounding on the
shallow and live coral reef area located between the safety zone and
the shoreline.
    (c) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 6 a.m. on
July 1, 2010 until 6 p.m. on July 21, 2010 or unless canceled earlier
by the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR part 165, Subpart C, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the
zone except for support vessels/aircraft and support personnel, or
other vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated
representatives.
    (e) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: June 18, 2010.
B. A. Compagnoni,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Honolulu.
[FR Doc. 2010-15969 Filed 6-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P