[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 70 (Friday, April 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 20285]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08130]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71895; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Adopt NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900, Which Permits the
Listing and Trading of Managed Portfolio Shares, and To List and Trade
Shares of the ActiveShares SM Large-Cap Fund, ActiveShares
SM Mid-Cap Fund, and ActiveShares SM Multi-Cap
Fund Pursuant to That Rule

April 7, 2014.
    On February 7, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt new NYSE
Arca Equities Rule 8.900, which would govern the listing and trading of
Managed Portfolio Shares, and to list and trade shares of the
ActiveSharesSM Large-Cap Fund, ActiveSharesSM
Mid-Cap Fund, and ActiveSharesSM Multi-Cap Fund
(collectively, ``Funds'') under proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 26, 2014.\3\ The Commission has received one
comment letter on the proposed rule change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71588 (Feb. 20,
2014), 79 FR 10848.
    \4\ See Letter from Gary L. Gastineau, President, ETF
Consultants.com, Inc., to Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary,
Commission, dated March 18, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the
comment received. The proposed rule change would permit the Exchange to
adopt new NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900, which would set forth the
initial and continued listing standards applicable to Managed Portfolio
Shares. In addition, the proposed rule change would permit the listing
and trading of shares of the Funds pursuant to proposed NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.900.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ designates May 27, 2014, as the date by which the Commission
shall either approve or disapprove or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File Number
SR-NYSEArca-2014-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08130 Filed 4-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 244 (Friday, December 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82577-82578]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27925]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0027-N-33]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below. Before submitting this ICR
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified in the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
February 16, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR to
Ms. Hodan Wells, Information Collection Clearance Officer at email:
exception occurred on : 2020-27925.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-27925.htm
hod[email protected] or telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please refer to the
assigned OMB control number in any correspondence submitted. FRA will
summarize comments received in response to this notice in a subsequent
notice and include them in its information collection submission to OMB
for approval.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically,
FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR
regarding: (1) whether the information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether
the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection activities,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways
for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on
the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, FRA reasons
that comments received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce
reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in
a ``user-friendly'' format to improve the use of such information; and
(3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Occupational Noise Exposure for Railroad Operating
Employees.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0571.
    Abstract: Title 49 CFR part 227 contains requirements for
occupational noise exposure. FRA uses the collection of information to
ensure that railroads covered by this rule establish and implement
noise monitoring, hearing conservation, and audiometric testing
programs to protect their employees against the harmful effects of
excessive noise in the workplace. Additionally, railroads must maintain
testing and training records on noise and hearing conservation.
Further, railroads must make exposure measurement records for specific
locations available to regional or national labor representatives upon
request.
    Type of Request: Extension with change (estimates) of a currently
approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses (Railroads, railroads equipment
manufacturers).
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 512 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Respondent
       CFR Section \1\            universe       Total Annual      Average time    Total annual     Total cost
                                 (railroads)       responses      per  response    burden hours   equivalent \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
227.13--Waivers..............   512 railroads  .3 petition       1 hour.........              .3             $23
                                                letters.
227.103(a)-(f)--Noise           512 railroads  5 programs......  30 hours.......             150          18,000
 monitoring program--
 Development and
 implementation.
--(g) Reporting of monitoring   512 railroads  5 lists.........  30 minutes.....               3             231
 results--Notification of
 employee of monitoring.
227.107(a)--Hearing             512 railroads  3 HCPs..........  31 hours.......              93          11,160
 Conservation Program (HCP)--
 Development of programs.
--Revised hearing               512 railroads  3 HCPs..........  1.75 hours.....               5             385
 conservation programs (HCPs).
227.109(e)--Audiometric                76,244  6,862 records of  30 seconds.....              57           4,389
 testing program--Baseline          employees   tests.
 audiograms--New and existing
 employees.

--(f) Periodic audiograms....          76,244  25,415 records    30 seconds.....             212          16,324
                                    employees   of tests.
--(g)(1)-(2) Evaluation of             76,244  2,330 ratings +   6 minutes + 30              234          18,018
 audiograms.                        employees   93 records of     seconds.
                                                retests.
--(g)(3) Review of problem              8,000  45 documents....  10 minutes.....               8             616
 audiograms.                        employees
-- (h)(1) Follow-up                     8,000  93 notices......  5 minutes......               8             616
 procedures--notifications.         employees
--(h)(2)(i)-(ii) Fitting/       240 employees  240 documenting   5 minutes......              20           1,540
 training of employees:                         training
 hearing protectors.                            sessions.
-- (h)(2)(iii) Referrals for    240 employees  20 referrals....  1 hour.........              20           1,540
 clinical/otological exam.
-- (h)(2)(iv) Notification to   240 employees  20 notices......  5 minutes......               2             154
 employee of need for
 otological examination.
-- (h)(3) New audiometric       240 employees  20 notices......  5 minutes......               2             154
 interpretation.
227.111--Audiometric test        1,000 mobile  1,000 records of  30 seconds.....               8             616
 requirements.                           vans   tests.
227.117(a)--Hearing             512 railroads  50 evaluations..  30 minutes.....              25           1,925
 protection attenuation--
 evaluation.
-- (d) Reevaluations of         512 railroads  10 documented re- 30 minutes.....               5             385
 adequacy of hearing                            evaluations.
 protection attenuation when
 employee noise exposure
 increases.
227.119--Hearing Conservation   512 railroads  3 training        60 minutes.....               3             231
 Training Program--                             program
 Development.                                   modifications.
--Employee HCP training......   512 railroads  26,000 records    2 minutes......             867          66,759
                                                of trainings.
--Periodic training..........   512 railroads  6,862 records of  2 minutes......             229          17,633
                                                trainings.
227.121(a)(1)(i)-(ii)--         512 railroads  30 requests + 30  10 minutes + 15              13           1,001
 Recordkeeping--Availability                    responses.        minutes.
 of records upon request.
--(a)(1)(iv) Availability of    512 railroads  150 requests +    21 minutes + 45             165          12,705
 exposure measurement records                   150 responses.    minutes.
 to regional or national
 labor representatives upon
 request.
--(a)(2)-(3) Electronic         512 railroads  10 records......  24 minutes.....               4             308
 records--Maintenance and
 transfer of records.
--(c) Audiometric test          512 railroads  26,000 records..  2 minutes......             867          66,759
 records.
--(d) Positions and person      512 railroads  54,000 records..  45 seconds.....             675          51,975
 designated records.
229.121(a)--Locomotive Cab        3 equipment  610 records + 90  5 minutes + 40              111           8,547
 Noise--Performance standards   manufacturers   certifications.   minutes.
 for locomotives--Records and
 certification.
--(b)(3) Maintenance of         494 railroads  3,000 reports +   1 minute + 1                100           7,700
 locomotives--Excessive noise                   3,000 records.    minute.
 reports.
--(b)(4) Recordkeeping--        494 railroads  3,750 records...  1 minute.......              63           4,851
 Written or electronic
 records.
--(b)(4)(iii) Internal          494 railroads  22 systems + 2    36 min + 8.25                30           2,310
 auditable monitoring                           systems.          hours.
 systems--Records.
Appendix H(IV)--Static noise              500  2 retest records  5 minutes......              .2              15
 test protocols--Records for      locomotives
 retest.
    Total....................   512 railroads  159,927           N/A............           3,980         316,871
                                                responses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 159,927.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The current inventory exhibits a total burden of 28,311
hours while the total burden of this notice is 3,980 hours. FRA
determined some of the estimates were not derived from PRA
requirements, thus leading to the increased figures in the current
inventory, which were decreased accordingly in this notice. Also,
totals may not add due to rounding.
    \2\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the Surface
Transportation Board's Full Year Wage A&B data series using the
appropriate employee group hourly wage rate that includes a 75-
percent overhead charge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 3,980 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$316,871.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that a respondent is not required to
respond to, conduct, or sponsor a collection of information that does
not display a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-27925 Filed 12-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: July 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 41855-41856]
[DOCID:fr19jy10-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-53-000]

ONEOK Field Services Company, LLC; Notice of Petition for Rate
Approval

July 13, 2010.
    Take notice that on July 1, 2010, ONEOK Field Services Company, LLC

(OFS) filed a petition for rate approval pursuant to section
284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's regulations. OFS states it is filing
for approval for a new maximum rate for interruptible transportation
service provided pursuant to Section 311 of the NGPA.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests 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. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions 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 or intervention 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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, July 26, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-17548 Filed 7-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59115-59119]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23398]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0576; FRL-9916-28]

Fluoxastrobin; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues
of fluoxastrobin and its Z-isomer in or on melon subgroup 9A; sorghum,
grain, grain; sorghum, grain, forage; and sorghum, grain, stover.
Arysta LifeScience, North America, LLC, requested these tolerances
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective October 1, 2014. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 1, 2014,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0576, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How an I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-
idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0576 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
December 1, 2014. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0576, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50661) (FRL-9358-
9), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
2F8047) by Arysta LifeScience, North America, LLC, 15401 Weston Pkwy,
Suite 150, Cary, NC 27513. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.609
be amended by establishing tolerances for combined residues of the
fungicide, fluoxastrobin, (1E)-[2-[[6-(2-chlorophenoxy)-5-fluoro-4-
pyrimydinyl]oxy]phenyl](5,6-dihydro-1,4,2-dioxazin-3-yl)methanone O-
methyloxime, and its Z-isomer, (1Z)-[2-[[6-(2-chlorophenoxy)-5-fluoro-
4-pyrimydinyl]oxy]phenyl](5,6-dihydro-1,4,2-dioxazin-3-yl)methanone O-
methyloxime, in or on melon, subgroup 9A, at 1.5 parts per million
(ppm); sorghum grain at 1.5 ppm; sorghum forage at 4 ppm; and sorghum
stover at 4 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by Arysta LifeScience, North America LLC, the registrant,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov.

Comments were not received on the notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for fluoxastrobin including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with fluoxastrobin
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.
    Following repeated exposure, fluoxastrobin has mild or low toxicity
in all tested species except for the dog. Repeated oral administration
to dogs resulted in adverse liver toxicity at considerably lower doses
than those noted in other species. Based on species sensitivity, the
effects observed in the dog were used as endpoints for risk assessment.
In both the 90-day and 1-year oral feeding studies in dogs, the liver
appeared to be the target organ. In dogs, mice, and rats, the kidney
was another target organ. There was no indication of an adverse effect
attributable to a single dose. Based on developmental toxicity studies
(rat and rabbit) and a 2-generation reproduction study (rat), there was
neither increased susceptibility of pre-/postnatal exposure to
fluoxastrobin, nor adverse effects on reproduction. Furthermore,
neurotoxic effects were not seen in an acute neurotoxicity study in
rats up to the limit dose of 2,000 mg/kg/day. In a subchronic
neurotoxicity study in rats, fluoxastrobin did not elicit any
neurotoxic effects. Repeated dose studies of fluoxastrobin in the
database did not show immunotoxic effects in rats. Results of
genotoxicity testing were negative and there were no treatment-related
carcinogenicity findings in adequately performed carcinogenicity
studies in rats and mice. Therefore, fluoxastrobin is classified as
``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.'' Specific information on
the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by
fluoxastrobin as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)
and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity
studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document
Fluoxastrobin. Aggregate Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed
New Uses on Melon Subgroup 9A and Sorghum, Along with Establishment of
Permanent Tolerances on Wheat, and Amendments to Established Tolerances
on Milk and Milk Fat on page 26 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-
0576.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fluoxastrobin used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of April 11, 2014 (79 FR 20100,
20101-02) (FRL-9907-46), docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0576.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fluoxastrobin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing fluoxastrobin
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.609. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
fluoxastrobin 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 fluoxastrobin; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. A slightly refined chronic dietary exposure
assessment was performed for fluoxastrobin using tolerance-level
residues, average field trial residues, and 100% crop treated (CT).
This risk assessment was conducted using the DEEM-FCID Version 3.16.
This model uses 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA).
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that fluoxastrobin does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for fluoxastrobin. Tolerance-level residues, average
field-trial residues, and/or 100% CT were assumed for all food
commodities.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for fluoxastrobin in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of fluoxastrobin. 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. In
addition to evaluating the EDWCs from the proposed uses, EDWCs were
reevaluated for all existing uses with Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground
Water (PRZM-GW), which models continued use of fluoxastrobin over many
years. For the chronic dietary assessment, the ground water EDWC (137
[micro]g/L) was more conservative than the surface water EDWC (18.6
[micro]g/L); the ground water EDWC was based on an existing turf use
modeled with a 100-year simulation of 100 years of repeated
applications, using the highest single maximum application rate and the
highest yearly application rate.
    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).
    Fluoxastrobin is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Broadcast control of diseases on
turf, including lawns and golf courses. EPA assessed residential
exposure using the following assumptions:
    i. Residential handler exposure. Residential handler exposure for
adults is expected to be short-term only. Intermediate-term and chronic
exposures are not likely because of the intermittent nature of
applications by homeowners. Since there are no toxicity findings for
the short-term dermal route of exposure up to the limit dose, the
residential handler assessment only includes the inhalation route of
exposure.
    ii. Post-application exposure. There is also potential for
homeowners and their families (of varying ages) to be exposed as a
result of entering areas that have previously been treated with
fluoxastrobin. Residential post-application exposure for adults and
children is expected to be short-term only because residues are not
expected to be present for longer periods of time. Exposure might occur
on areas such as lawns used by children or recreational areas such as
golf courses used by adults and youths. Potential routes of exposure
include dermal (adults and children) and incidental oral ingestion
(children). Since no acute hazard has been identified, an assessment of
episodic granular ingestion was not conducted. Further information
regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential
exposures may be found at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/residential-exposure-sop.html.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found fluoxastrobin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and fluoxastrobin does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
fluoxastrobin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The available studies used
to evaluate pre- and postnatal exposure susceptibility do not indicate
increased susceptibility of rats or rabbits to fluoxastrobin. These
studies include the following:
    i. Developmental toxicity studies in rats.
    ii. Developmental toxicity studies in rabbits.
    iii. A 2-generation reproduction study in rats.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for fluoxastrobin is complete. EPA waived
the requirement for a subchronic inhalation data based on, among other
things, its conclusion that even if an additional 10X safety factor was
applied, inhalation exposure would not raise a risk of concern.
    ii. There is no indication that fluoxastrobin is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that fluoxastrobin results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study. The rat developmental study was tested up to the limit dose
(1,000 mg/kg/day), and the rabbit developmental study was tested up to
400 mg/kg/day (highest dose tested). At the highest dose tested, there
were decreases in food consumption and body weight in the maternal
animals, but there were no developmental effects. Furthermore, in the
rat reproduction study, there was no sensitivity in the offspring of
the pups relative to the parental animals.
    iv. The exposure databases are estimated based on data that
reasonably account for potential exposures. The chronic dietary food
exposure assessment was slightly refined but still based on 100 PCT
assumptions, tolerance-level residues, some average field-trial
residues, and conservative ground water modeling estimates. New 2012
Residential Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) were used to assess
post-application exposure to children including incidental oral
exposure. In addition, the Agency has obtained a Turf Transferable
Residue (TTR) study, which provides slightly refined chemical-specific
assumptions to estimate exposure for the hand-to-mouth post-application
assessment. The assessment is still considered highly conservative
because it assumes maximum application rates and conservative day zero
hand-to-mouth activities.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
fluoxastrobin is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
fluoxastrobin from food and water will utilize 30% of the cPAD for the
general population, and 66% of the cPAD for all infants <1 year old,
the population subgroup with the highest estimated chronic dietary
exposure to fluoxastrobin. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3.,
regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to
residues of fluoxastrobin is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Fluoxastrobin is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to fluoxastrobin.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 610 for adults
and 110 for children (1-2 years old). Because EPA's level of concern
for fluoxastrobin is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of
concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
fluoxastrobin is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
fluoxastrobin.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, fluoxastrobin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. 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 fluoxastrobin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography/mass
spectrometry/mass spectrometry) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. Method No. 00604 is available for plant commodities and
Method No. 00691 is available for livestock commodities. The method may
be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    There are no Codex maximum residue limits (MRLs) established for
fluoxastrobin.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    The petition requested a tolerance of 4.0 ppm for residues of
fluoxastrobin and its Z-isomer on sorghum forage and stover. Based on
the available residue data and using the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) tolerance calculation procedure, the
Agency is establishing a tolerance for these commodities at 5.0 ppm. In
addition, the Agency is revising the commodity names to ``sorghum,
grain, grain'', ``sorghum, grain, forage'', and ``sorghum, grain,
stover'' to be consistent with the commodity vocabulary EPA generally
uses for tolerances.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of
fluoxastrobin and its Z-isomer in or on melon subgroup 9A and sorghum,
grain, grain at 1.5 ppm; and in or on sorghum, grain, forage and
sorghum, grain, stover at 5.0 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d)
in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income

Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This 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 FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 24, 2014.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.609, add alphabetically ``melon subgroup 9A'';
``sorghum, grain, forage''; ``sorghum, grain, grain''; and ``sorghum,
grain, stover'' to the table in paragraph (a)(1) as follows:

Sec.  180.609  Fluoxastrobin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Melon subgroup 9A..........................................          1.5

                                * * * * *
Sorghum, grain, forage.....................................          5.0
Sorghum, grain, grain......................................          1.5
Sorghum, grain, stover.....................................          5.0

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-23398 Filed 9-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


############### WOTUS Wetland 200-Mile Buffer Analysis  #######################

# Author: Sam Ennett
# Date Created: 05/17/22

options(stringsAsFactors=FALSE)

pacman::p_load(dplyr, sf, tidycensus, readxl, openxlsx, tidyverse)

rm(list=ls())
gc()
memory.limit(size=100000)

# Variables to change before running the code ---------------------------------
Input_path <- "C:/Users/56407/ICF/WOTUS Reconsideration (ICF Internal Site) - General/Wetland Meta-Analysis/100 Mile Buffer/Inputs/"
Output_path <- "C:/Users/56407/ICF/WOTUS Reconsideration (ICF Internal Site) - General/Wetland Meta-Analysis/100 Mile Buffer/Outputs/"
TAMU_path <- "C:/Users/56407/ICF/EPA-Economic and Water Quality Modeling and Assessment Support - From_TAMU/"
GIS_path <- "C:/Users/56407/ICF/Le, Alyssa - GIS_Data/TIGER/"
ORM_path <- "C:/Users/56407/ICF/WOTUS Reconsideration (ICF Internal Site) - General/ORM Data Processing/Outputs/"
wood_poole_path <- "C:/Users/56407/ICF/WOTUS Reconsideration (ICF Internal Site) - General/National Analysis/Population Projections/Outputs/"

# Conversion factor
dist_conv_metertomiles <- 0.000621371

# Buffer distances
Buffer_Dist <- c(200, 30)

# ACS Call Variables
years <- c(2019)
geography <- "county"

# Activate census API key
census_api_key("a37705549debf5d0b8e43a4fa62c7eb552f928bc")

Census_var <- c("S2501_C01_001E", # occupied housing units
                "B19013_001",     # median household income
                "DP02_0016E")     # persons per household

# Read in data ----------------------------------------------------------------
## Read in state crosswalk for FIPS code, regions -----------------------------
State_xwalk <- read.csv(paste0(Input_path,"us-state-ansi-fips-region.csv"), header=T) %>%
  filter(stusps!="AK" & stusps!="DC") # remove Alaska to deal with separately

State_xwalk$st <- str_pad(State_xwalk$st, width = 2, side = "left", pad = "0")

## TIGER Boundary Dataset ------------------------------------------------------
### Import TIGER boundaries
TIGER_boundary_raw <- st_read(paste0(GIS_path, "2019/County/tl_2019_us_county.shp"))

## Import shapefile with predetermined oversize counties
big_count <- st_read(paste0(Input_path, "tl_2020_us_county_CEC_oversized_sub.shp"))

## Get unique GEOIDs for oversized counties
big_geoid <- unique(big_count$GEOID)
big_st <- unique(big_count$STATEFP)

TIGER_boundary <-  subset(TIGER_boundary_raw, !(GEOID %in% big_geoid))

## HAWQS HUC Boundaries --------------------------------------------------------
# create list of directories
hawqs_dirs <- list.dirs(path = paste0(TAMU_path,"HAWQS_HUC_Dataset_2022-01"), recursive = FALSE)

# Read in all HAWQS boundaries
if (exists("hawqs_huc12")) {
  rm(hawqs_huc12)
}

for (i in 1:length(hawqs_dirs)) {
  if (exists("hawqs_huc12")){
    temp_hawqs_huc12 <- st_read(paste0(hawqs_dirs[[i]],"/SWAT/Fields_CDL/HUC12/Merged",
                                       substr(hawqs_dirs[[i]],nchar(hawqs_dirs[[i]])-1,nchar(hawqs_dirs[[i]])),
                                       "/Watershed/Shapes/demwshed.shp")) %>%
      mutate(region = i)
    hawqs_huc12 <- rbind(hawqs_huc12, temp_hawqs_huc12)
    rm(temp_hawqs_huc12)
  }
  else {
    hawqs_huc12 <- st_read(paste0(hawqs_dirs[[i]],"/SWAT/Fields_CDL/HUC12/Merged",
                                  substr(hawqs_dirs[[i]],nchar(hawqs_dirs[[i]])-1,nchar(hawqs_dirs[[i]])),
                                  "/Watershed/Shapes/demwshed.shp")) %>%
      mutate(region = i)
  }
}
unique(hawqs_huc12$region)
# st_write(hawqs_huc12, paste0(Output_path, "hawqs_huc12.shp"))

## Import Census Data ---------------------------------------------------------
# use S2501_C01_001E "occupied housing units"
# figure out how to make it flexible for CBGs or Counties

# Census Occupied Housing Data Call -------------------------------------------
states <- State_xwalk$stusps

cen_data <- data.frame()

if (exists("cen_temp_data")) {
  rm(cen_temp_data)
}

## Census API Call ------------------------------------------------------------
for (i in 1:length(years)) {
  cen_temp_data <- map_df(states, function(x) {
    get_acs(geography = geography,
            year = years[i],
            survey = "acs5",
            state = x,
            variables = Census_var,
            overwrite = T)
  }) %>% mutate(year = years[i])
  cen_data <- rbind(cen_data, cen_temp_data)
}

## Pivot Census Data Wider
cen_data_wide <- cen_data %>%
  select(GEOID, variable, estimate) %>%
  pivot_wider(names_from = "variable", values_from = "estimate")

## Save Global Environment ----------------------------------------------------
save.image(file = paste0(Output_path, "200mileWetlandAnalysis_All_7-14-22.RData"))

# GIS Analysis ----------------------------------------------------------------
## Regular Counties -----------------------------------------------------------

### Convert polygons to North American Albers projection ----------------------
TIGER_boundary_albers <- st_transform(TIGER_boundary,
                                crs="+proj=aea +lat_1=29.5 +lat_2=45.5 +lat_0=23 +lon_0=-96 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 +ellps=GRS80 +datum=NAD83 +units=m +no_defs ")

### Create centroids for boundary polygons ------------------------------------
TIGER_boundary_points <- st_centroid(TIGER_boundary_albers)

## Reproject HUC 12 Boundaries ------------------------------------------------
hawqs_huc12 <- st_transform(hawqs_huc12,
             crs="+proj=aea +lat_1=29.5 +lat_2=45.5 +lat_0=23 +lon_0=-96 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 +ellps=GRS80 +datum=NAD83 +units=m +no_defs ")

hawqs_huc12$Area_m2 <- st_area(hawqs_huc12)

## Buffer and Intersect Loop ---------------------------------------------------
ptm <- proc.time()
dist_conv_metertomiles <- 0.000621371
state_fips <- unique(TIGER_boundary$STATEFP)
buff_100 <- list()
buff_30 <- list()

for (j in 1:length(state_fips)) { # length(state_fips)

  fac_buffer <- list()
  buff_int <- list()
  buff_int_nogeom <- list()

  boundary_points_filt <- TIGER_boundary_points %>%
    filter(STATEFP == state_fips[j]) # state_fips[j]

  for (i in 1:length(Buffer_Dist)) {
    # Draw specified buffers around facility locations
    fac_buffer[[i]] <-
      st_buffer(boundary_points_filt, dist = Buffer_Dist[i] / dist_conv_metertomiles)

    # Intersect the facility buffers with CBG boundaries
    buff_int[[i]] <- st_intersection(fac_buffer[[i]], hawqs_huc12)

    # Calculate area of intersection
    buff_int[[i]]$Int_Area_m2 <- st_area(buff_int[[i]])

    # drop geometry for space
    buff_int_nogeom[[i]] <- buff_int[[i]] %>%
      st_drop_geometry()

  }

  rm(buff_int, fac_buffer)
  gc()

  buff_100[[j]] <- buff_int_nogeom[[1]] %>%
    select(GEOID, HUC12, Area_m2, Int_Area_m2)

  buff_30[[j]] <- buff_int_nogeom[[2]] %>%
    select(GEOID, HUC12, Area_m2, Int_Area_m2)

}
proc.time() - ptm

## Combine Buffer Datasets ----------------------------------------------------
for (i in 1:length(buff_100)) {
  if (exists("buff_100_total")) {
    buff_100_temp <- buff_100[[i]]

    buff_100_total <- rbind(buff_100_total, buff_100_temp)
  } else {
    buff_100_total <- buff_100[[i]]
  }
}

for (i in 1:length(buff_30)) {
  if (exists("buff_30_total")) {
    buff_30_temp <- buff_30[[i]]

    buff_30_total <- rbind(buff_30_total, buff_30_temp)
  } else {
    buff_30_total <- buff_30[[i]]
  }
}

# Calculate the proportion of the HUC within each buffer
buff_100_total$HUC_RATIO_100 <- with(buff_100_total, Int_Area_m2/(Area_m2))
buff_30_total$HUC_RATIO_30 <- with(buff_30_total, Int_Area_m2/(Area_m2))

## Oversized Counties ----------------------------------------------------------
big_count_albers <- st_transform(big_count,
                                 crs="+proj=aea +lat_1=29.5 +lat_2=45.5 +lat_0=23 +lon_0=-96 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 +ellps=GRS80 +datum=NAD83 +units=m +no_defs ")

big_count_points <- st_centroid(big_count_albers)

big_count_points$Split_GEOID <- ifelse(duplicated(big_count_points$GEOID)==FALSE, paste0(big_count_points$GEOID, "_1"), paste0(big_count_points$GEOID, "_2"))

### Buffer and Intersect Loop ---------------------------------------------------

dist_conv_metertomiles <- 0.000621371
buff_100_BC <- list()
buff_30_BC <- list()

for (j in 1:length(big_st)) { # length(state_fips)

  fac_buffer_BC <- list()
  buff_int_BC <- list()
  buff_int_nogeom_BC <- list()

  boundary_points_filt_BC <- big_count_points %>%
    filter(STATEFP == big_st[j])

  for (i in 1:length(Buffer_Dist)) {
    # Draw specified buffers around facility locations
    fac_buffer_BC[[i]] <-
      st_buffer(boundary_points_filt_BC, dist = Buffer_Dist[i] / dist_conv_metertomiles)

    # Intersect the facility buffers with CBG boundaries
    buff_int_BC[[i]] <- st_intersection(fac_buffer_BC[[i]], hawqs_huc12)

    # Calculate area of intersection
    buff_int_BC[[i]]$Int_Area_m2 <- st_area(buff_int_BC[[i]])

    # drop geometry for space
    buff_int_nogeom_BC[[i]] <- buff_int_BC[[i]] %>%
      st_drop_geometry()

  }

  rm(buff_int_BC, fac_buffer_BC)
  gc()

  buff_100_BC[[j]] <- buff_int_nogeom_BC[[1]] %>%
    select(GEOID, Split_GEOID, HUC12, Area_m2, Int_Area_m2)

  buff_30_BC[[j]] <- buff_int_nogeom_BC[[2]] %>%
    select(GEOID, Split_GEOID, HUC12, Area_m2, Int_Area_m2)
}

### Combine Buffer Datasets ----------------------------------------------------
rm(buff_100_total_BC)
rm(buff_30_total_BC)

for (i in 1:length(buff_100_BC)) {
  if (exists("buff_100_total_BC")) {
    buff_100_temp <- buff_100_BC[[i]]

    buff_100_total_BC <- rbind(buff_100_total_BC, buff_100_temp)
  } else {
    buff_100_total_BC <- buff_100_BC[[i]]
  }
}

for (i in 1:length(buff_30_BC)) {
  if (exists("buff_30_total_BC")) {
    buff_30_temp <- buff_30_BC[[i]]

    buff_30_total_BC <- rbind(buff_30_total_BC, buff_30_temp)
  } else {
    buff_30_total_BC <- buff_30_BC[[i]]
  }
}

# Calculate the proportion of the HUC within each buffer
buff_100_total_BC$HUC_RATIO_100 <- with(buff_100_total_BC, Int_Area_m2/(Area_m2))
buff_30_total_BC$HUC_RATIO_30 <- with(buff_30_total_BC, Int_Area_m2/(Area_m2))

# Bind Regular and Oversize Areas together ------------------------------------
buff_100_total$Split_GEOID <- buff_100_total$GEOID
buff_30_total$Split_GEOID <- buff_30_total$GEOID

buff_100_bind <- rbind(buff_100_total, buff_100_total_BC)
buff_30_bind <- rbind(buff_30_total, buff_30_total_BC)

end.time <- sys.time()
# Format Data for Analysis ----------------------------------------------------
## HAWQS wetlands -------------------------------------------------------------
### Region numerals
numerals <- substr(hawqs_dirs,nchar(hawqs_dirs[[i]])-1,nchar(hawqs_dirs[[i]]))

### Read in HAWQS SWAT Inputs
# hawqs_hru <- read.csv(paste0(Input_path, "hawqs_hru.csv"))

# The below code takes ~10 minutes to run.
if (exists("hawqs_hru")) {
  rm(hawqs_hru)
}

for (i in 1:length(numerals)) {
  if (exists("hawqs_hru")){
    temp_hawqs_hru <- read.csv(paste0(TAMU_path, "SWAT_Input_Files_2022-01/hawqs-v2-",numerals[[i]],"-huc12-hru.csv"))
    hawqs_hru <- rbind(hawqs_hru, temp_hawqs_hru)
    rm(temp_hawqs_hru)
  }
  else {
    hawqs_hru <- read.csv(paste0(TAMU_path, "SWAT_Input_Files_2022-01/hawqs-v2-",numerals[[i]],"-huc12-hru.csv"))
  }
  hawqs_hru$Subbasin <- str_pad(hawqs_hru$Subbasin, width = 12, side = "left", pad = "0")
}

### HAWQS HRU QA ---------------------------------------------------------------
hawqs_hru_QA <- hawqs_hru %>%
  mutate(huc8 = substr(Subbasin, 1, 4)) %>%
  filter(huc8 == "0808" | huc8 == "0804")

## 404 Modeled Impacts to Wetlands -------------------------------------
orm_old <- read_excel(path = paste0(ORM_path, "FINAL_404_ImpactChanges_2021.09.23.v2.xlsx"), sheet = "Impacts_By_HUC12")
orm <- read.csv(paste0(ORM_path, "Impacts_By_HUC12_2022.07.28.csv"))

## Summarize HAWQS Wetland Areas by HUC12 -------------------------------------
hru_wetland <- hawqs_hru %>%
  rename(HUC12 = Subbasin) %>%
  group_by(HUC12) %>%
  summarise(TotalWetlandArea = sum(HruArea[Land_Use=="AGWT" | Land_Use=="AGWF" | Land_Use=="RIWF" | Land_Use=="RIWN" | Land_Use=="UPWF" | Land_Use=="UPWN"]),
            ForestWetlandArea = sum(HruArea[Land_Use=="AGWF" | Land_Use=="RIWF" | Land_Use=="UPWF"]))

# Merge buffer data frames
buff_merge <- merge(buff_100_bind, buff_30_bind, by = c("Split_GEOID", "HUC12"), all.x = T)

## Merge Datasets -------------------------------------------------------------
### Join summarized wetland areas to HUC12 boundaries by HUC12
hawqs_wetland_changes_merge <- Reduce(function(x, y) merge(x=x, y=y, by="HUC12", all.x=T),
       list(buff_merge, hru_wetland, orm))

# hawqs_wetland_changes_summary <- hawqs_wetland_changes_merge %>%
#   group_by(Split_GEOID) %>%
#   summarise(TotalWetlandArea = TotalWetlandArea,
#             HUC12 = HUC12,
#             HUC_RATIO_30 = HUC_RATIO_30,
#             HUC_RATIO_100 = HUC_RATIO_100,
#             Prop.Forested = (sum((ForestWetlandArea*HUC_RATIO_100))/sum((TotalWetlandArea*HUC_RATIO_100))),
#             Baseline.Wetlands = sum(TotalWetlandArea),
#             prop_30 = sum(TotalWetlandArea*HUC_RATIO_30, na.rm = T),
#             prop_100 = sum(TotalWetlandArea*HUC_RATIO_100),
#             Prop.local = prop_30/prop_100,
#             impacts.NWPR.perm = sum((PERM_TOTAL_NWPR*HUC_RATIO_100), na.rm = T),
#             impacts.Rapanos.perm = sum((PERM_TOTAL_Rapanos*HUC_RATIO_100), na.rm = T),
#             impacts.NWPR.temp = sum((TEMP_TOTAL_NWPR*HUC_RATIO_100), na.rm = T),
#             impacts.Rapanos.temp = sum((TEMP_TOTAL_Rapanos*HUC_RATIO_100), na.rm = T))

hawqs_wetland_changes_summary <- hawqs_wetland_changes_merge %>%
  group_by(Split_GEOID) %>%
  summarise(Prop.Forested = (sum((ForestWetlandArea*HUC_RATIO_100))/sum((TotalWetlandArea*HUC_RATIO_100))),
            Baseline.Wetlands = sum(TotalWetlandArea),
            Prop.local = sum((TotalWetlandArea*HUC_RATIO_30), na.rm = T)/sum((TotalWetlandArea*HUC_RATIO_100), na.rm = T),
            impacts.NWPR.perm = sum((PERM_TOTAL_NWPR*HUC_RATIO_100), na.rm = T),
            impacts.Rapanos.perm = sum((PERM_TOTAL_Rapanos*HUC_RATIO_100), na.rm = T),
            impacts.NWPR.temp = sum((TEMP_TOTAL_NWPR*HUC_RATIO_100), na.rm = T),
            impacts.Rapanos.temp = sum((TEMP_TOTAL_Rapanos*HUC_RATIO_100), na.rm = T)) %>%
  mutate(GEOID = substr(Split_GEOID, 1, 5))

### QA - how many HUC12s have missing wetland change data? Over half.
length(unique(hawqs_wetland_changes_merge$HUC12[is.na(hawqs_wetland_changes_merge$PERM_ACRES_CHANGE)]))/
  length(unique(hawqs_wetland_changes_merge$HUC12))

### QA - how many HUC12s have missing wetland data? Less than 3% but mostly in region 08; 0804 and 0808
length(unique(hawqs_wetland_changes_merge$HUC12[is.na(hawqs_wetland_changes_merge$TotalWetlandArea)]))/
  length(unique(hawqs_wetland_changes_merge$HUC12))
#*# AL: Created a data frame so you could investigate further.
wetland_area_issues <- hawqs_wetland_changes_merge[which(is.na(hawqs_wetland_changes_merge$TotalWetlandArea)), ]

### Join boundary polygons with census data by GEOID
census_wetland_merge <- merge(hawqs_wetland_changes_summary, cen_data_wide, by = "GEOID") %>%
  mutate(STATEFP = substr(GEOID,1,2))

## Read in Woods and Poole Data -----------------------------------------------
wp_data_raw <- read.csv(paste0(wood_poole_path, "Woods_and_Poole_2021_CountyData_v2.csv"))

wp_data <- wp_data_raw %>%
  mutate(GEOID = trimws(str_sub(CountyName, (nchar(CountyName)-6), (nchar(CountyName)-1))),
         State = trimws(str_sub(CountyName, (nchar(CountyName)-19), (nchar(CountyName)-17))))

we <- census_wetland_region$GEOID
wp <- wp_data$GEOID
ans <- setdiff(we, wp) # 51 missing FIPS codes from VA

### Join Region Crosswalk and Format Final Output -----------------------------
census_wetland_region <- merge(census_wetland_merge, State_xwalk, by.x = "STATEFP", by.y = "st", all.x = T) %>%
  mutate(`ln(Median Income)` = log(B19013_001)) %>%
  select(GEOID, Split_GEOID, stusps, `ln(Median Income)`, sagulf, nema, nmw, Prop.Forested, Prop.local, Baseline.Wetlands, impacts.NWPR.perm,
         impacts.Rapanos.perm, impacts.NWPR.temp, impacts.Rapanos.temp) %>%
  filter(!GEOID %in% ans | stusps == "HI")

# Persons per Household -------------------------------------------------------
# DP02_0016E
cen_pphh <- cen_data %>%
  filter(variable == "DP02_0016")

# QA Number of Row between Census Wetland region and HH WTP
setdiff(census_wetland_region$GEOID, hh_wtp$GEOID)
setdiff(hh_wtp$GEOID, census_wetland_region$GEOID)

# Merge HH WTP and 100-mile buffer
wetlands_hhwtp <- merge(census_wetland_region, hh_wtp, by = "GEOID")

# Write output files ----------------------------------------------------------
write.csv(census_wetland_region, paste0(Output_path, "WOTUS_200milebuffer_wetlandanalysis_7-28-22.csv"), row.names=FALSE)
write.csv(census_wetland_region, paste0(Output_path, "WOTUS_100milebuffer_wetlandanalysis_7-28-22.csv"), row.names=FALSE)
# write.csv(hh_wtp, paste0(Output_path, "WOTUS_200milebuffer_HouseholdWTP_6-29-22.csv"), row.names=FALSE)
write.xlsx(census_wetland_region, paste0(Output_path, "WOTUS_200milebuffer_wetlandanalysis_7-28-22.xlsx"))
write.xlsx(census_wetland_region, paste0(Output_path, "WOTUS_100milebuffer_wetlandanalysis_7-28-22.xlsx"))
# write.xlsx(hh_wtp, paste0(Output_path, "WOTUS_200milebuffer_HouseholdWTP_6-29-22.xlsx"))

# Alaska ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# msa <- st_read(paste0(Input_path, "Alaska_MSA_sub.shp"))
#
# msa$Split_GEOID <- ifelse(duplicated(msa$GEO_ID)==TRUE, paste0(msa$GEO_ID, "_S"), paste0(msa$GEO_ID))
#
#
# msa_albers <- st_transform(msa,
#                crs="+proj=aea +lat_1=29.5 +lat_2=45.5 +lat_0=23 +lon_0=-96 +x_0=0 +y_0=0 +ellps=GRS80 +datum=NAD83 +units=m +no_defs ")
#
# msa_points <- st_centroid(msa_albers)
#
# ### Buffer and Intersect Loop ---------------------------------------------------
# ptm <- proc.time()
# dist_conv_metertomiles <- 0.000621371
# ak <- "AK"
# fac_buffer_AK <- list()
# buff_int_AK <- list()
# buff_100_AK <- list()
# buff_30_AK <- list()
#
# boundary_points_filt_AK <- msa_points
#
#   for (i in 1:length(Buffer_Dist)) {
#     # Draw specified buffers around facility locations
#     fac_buffer_AK[[i]] <-
#       st_buffer(boundary_points_filt_AK, dist = Buffer_Dist[i] / dist_conv_metertomiles)
#
#     # Intersect the facility buffers with CBG boundaries
#     buff_int_AK[[i]] <- st_intersection(fac_buffer_AK[[i]], hawqs_huc12)
#
#     # Calculate area of intersection
#     buff_int_AK[[i]]$Int_Area_m2 <- st_area(buff_int_AK[[i]])
#
#   }
# buff_100_total_AK <- buff_int_AK[[1]] %>%
#     st_drop_geometry() %>%
#     select(GEO_ID, Split_GEOID, HUC12, Area_m2, Int_Area_m2)
#
# buff_30_total_AK <- buff_int_AK[[2]] %>%
#     st_drop_geometry() %>%
#     select(GEO_ID, Split_GEOID, HUC12, Area_m2, Int_Area_m2)
#
#
# ### Combine Buffer Datasets ----------------------------------------------------
# # for (i in 1:length(buff_100_AK)) {
# #   if (exists("buff_100_total_AK")) {
# #     buff_100_temp <- buff_100_AK[[i]]
# #
# #     buff_100_total_AK <- rbind(buff_100_total_AK, buff_100_temp)
# #   } else {
# #     buff_100_total_AK <- buff_100_AK[[i]]
# #   }
# # }
# #
# # for (i in 1:length(buff_30_AK)) {
# #   if (exists("buff_30_total_AK")) {
# #     buff_30_temp <- buff_30_AK[[i]]
# #
# #     buff_30_total_AK <- rbind(buff_30_total_AK, buff_30_temp)
# #   } else {
# #     buff_30_total_AK <- buff_30_AK[[i]]
# #   }
# # }
#
# # Calculate the proportion of the HUC within each buffer
# buff_100_total_AK$HUC_RATIO_100 <- with(buff_100_total_AK, Int_Area_m2/(Area_m2))
# buff_30_total_AK$HUC_RATIO_30 <- with(buff_30_total_AK, Int_Area_m2/(Area_m2))
#

# prop local -----------------------------------------------------------------
prop.local.avg <- census_wetland_region %>%
  group_by(stusps) %>%
  summarise(avg.prop.local = mean(Prop.local))

# write.csv(prop.local.avg, paste0(Output_path, "prop_local_avg.csv"), row.names = F)

states <- data.frame(state.name, state.abb)


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31684-31685]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12819]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0027]

Hours of Service of Drivers: RockTenn, Exemption Application

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant RockTenn an exemption
from the driver hours-of-service (HOS) provisions of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). This limited exemption is for
RockTenn's shipping department employees and occasional substitute
commercial driver's license (CDL) holders who transport paper mill
products short distances between its shipping and receiving locations
on a public road. The exemption is restricted to a specific route.
RockTenn requested an exemption from the HOS regulation that prohibits
drivers from operating property-carrying commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) after the 14th hour of coming on duty. This exemption will allow
these individuals to occasionally work up to 16 consecutive hours and
be allowed to return to work with less than the mandatory 10
consecutive hours off duty.

DATES: This exemption is effective from April 17, 2012 (12:01 a.m.),
through April 16, 2014 (11:59 p.m.).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from many of the safety regulations, including the HOS requirements in
49 CFR part 395, for a two-year period if it finds ``such exemption
would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level of safety that would be achieved absent such
exemption'' (49 CFR 381.305(a)).

Request for Exemption

    Under 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2), a property-carrying CMV driver is
prohibited from operating a CMV on a public road after the end of the
14th hour after coming on duty following 10 or more consecutive hours
off duty.
    RockTenn operates a paper mill located in Chattanooga, Tennessee,
its principal place of business. Its shipping and receiving departments
are on opposite sides of the paper mill, requiring driver-employees to
travel on a public road to shuttle trailers as needed. These drivers
utilize a public road--Compress Street--an average of forty times per
day to travel between its manufacturing facility, and shipping and
receiving docks. These drivers do not transport any material farther
than the paper mill lots and/or Compress Street. The distance traveled
on Compress Street is approximately 275 feet in one direction, and one
tractor is used to perform this work.
    RockTenn requires all shipping department CMV drivers to have the
required 10 hours off duty prior to returning to work and only allows
them to work a maximum of 14 consecutive hours in any given duty
period. It has three 8-hour shifts up to 7 days a week, and there are
two shipping employees on each shift. One employee drives a fork-lift
truck loading trailers with finished goods, and the other operates the
tractor shuttling trailers. These employees do not drive the CMV
continuously during their shift(s).
    According to RockTenn, the problem arises because they use a
backward-rotating shift schedule, and also on occasion when a shipping
department driver does not report for work as scheduled. On a Monday,
for example, if an individual worked the weekend, his or her shift
would normally have to ``hurry back'' within 8 hours. As a result of
the mandatory 10 hours off-duty requirement, RockTenn schedules these
drivers' shifts to start later than other employees. This creates at
least 2 hours when the company cannot load or transport trailers with
finished goods due to the absence of the drivers.

Furthermore, as a result of the maximum 14 consecutive-hour duty period
rule, they may ``work short,'' creating on-time delivery issues for
other employees in the department, as they are not allowed to work an
entire ``double shift'' (16 hours) when necessary.
    RockTenn requested a limited exemption from 49 CFR part 395 for its
shipping department CMV drivers, as well as others with a valid CDL who
on occasion must substitute, allowing all such drivers to work up to 16
hours in a day and return to work with a minimum of at least 8 hours
off duty. If exempt from the normal HOS requirements, these employees
can follow the same work schedule as other RockTenn employees on their
shift, and will be able to work for the full 16 hours of a ``double
shift.'' RockTenn can therefore minimize the chances of delayed
shipments that may occur when their drivers are not allowed to work the
same schedule as other employees.
    RockTenn acknowledged in its application that these drivers would
still be subject to all of the other Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs), including possessing a CDL, random drug testing,
medical certification, and other driver-qualification requirements.
    A copy of RockTenn's application for exemption is available for
review in the docket for this notice.

Comments

    On June 14, 2010, FMCSA published notice of this application, and
asked for public comment (75 FR 33664). One set of comments was
received to the public docket. The Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) claimed that there is nothing in RockTenn's
application demonstrating that directing workers to work 16 hours in a
shift with 8 hours off duty would produce a safety outcome that is
equivalent to or greater than the safety secured by adhering to the 14-
hour rule. Advocates further indicated that approval of their request
would be for the convenience of the applicant, with no assurance of
safety benefit or equivalency.

FMCSA Decision

    The FMCSA has evaluated RockTenn's application for exemption and
the public comments. The Agency believes that RockTenn's overall safety
performance as reflected in its ``satisfactory'' safety rating, as well
as a number of other factors discussed below, will likely enable it to
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety achieved without the exemption (49 CFR 381.305(a)).
    This exemption is being granted under extremely narrow conditions.
The exemption is restricted to CDL holders employed by RockTenn who are
exclusively assigned to a specific route. This specific route is
entirely on one street (Compress Street), between their shipping and
receiving departments--approximately 275 feet in one direction. The
CMVs operated by RockTenn's shipping department shuttle drivers will
only be exposed to travel on a public road for very brief periods of
time.
    The exemption enables RockTenn's shipping department employees and
occasional substitute CDL holders who transport paper mill products
between their shipping and receiving locations to work up to 16
consecutive hours in a duty period and return to work with a minimum of
at least 8 hours off duty when necessary. This is comparable to current
HOS regulations that allow certain ``short-haul'' drivers a 16-hour
driving ``window'' once a week and other non-CDL short-haul drivers two
16-hour duty periods per week, provided specified conditions are met.
Furthermore, 49 CFR 381.305(a) specifies that motor carriers ``* * *
may apply for an exemption if one or more FMCSR prevents you from
implementing more efficient or effective operations that would maintain
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved
without the exemption.''

Terms of the Exemption

Period of the Exemption

    The exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) (the
``14-hour rule'') is granted for the period from 12:01 a.m. on April
17, 2012, through 11:59 p.m. on April 16, 2014, for drivers employed by
RockTenn operating CMVs on Compress Street between the company's
shipping and receiving departments.

Extent of the Exemption

    The exemption is restricted to drivers employed by RockTenn
operating CMVs on the route specified above. This exemption is limited
strictly to the provisions of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2) (Maximum driving time
for property-carrying vehicles), commonly referred to as the ``14-hour
rule''. In addition, on each trip, the CMV must only travel on Compress
Street--approximately 275 feet in one direction--between RockTenn's
shipping and receiving departments. These drivers must comply will all
other applicable provisions of the FMCSRs.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), during the period this
exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation
that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect
to a firm or person operating under the exemption.

Notification to FMCSA

    RockTenn must notify FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident
(as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's CMVs
operating under the terms of this exemption. The notification must
include the following information:
    a. Date of the accident,
    b. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene,
    c. Driver's name and license number,
    d. Vehicle number and state license number,
    e. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    f. Number of fatalities,
    g. The police-reported cause of the accident,
    h. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws,
motor carrier safety regulations, and
    i. The total driving time and total on-duty time period prior to
the accident.
    Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Termination

    FMCSA does not believe the drivers covered by this exemption will
experience any deterioration of their safety record. However, should
this occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public
interest, including revocation of the exemption. The FMCSA will
immediately revoke the exemption for failure to comply with its terms
and conditions. RockTenn and each driver may be subject to periodic
monitoring by FMCSA during the period of the exemption.

    Issued on: May 21, 2012.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-12819 Filed 5-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10954-10955]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04568]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; General Motors Corporation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the General Motors Corporation's
(GM) petition for an exemption of the Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line in
accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has
determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (Theft Prevention Standard).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2017 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-
439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated November 30, 2015, GM
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line beginning with
MY 2017. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard
equipment for the entire vehicle line.
    Under 49 CFR part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to
grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its
petition, GM provided a detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device for the MY 2017 Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line. GM stated that it
will install the PASS-Key III+ antitheft device as standard equipment
on its MY 2017 Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line. The PASS-Key III+ is a
passive, transponder based, electronic engine immobilizer antitheft
device. GM stated that a keyless ignition system will also be installed
on its Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line. Key components of its PASS-Key III+
system will include an electronically-coded ignition key (remote key
fob), a PASS-Key III+ controller module, engine control module (ECM),
immobilizer exciter module, radio frequency (RF) receiver, low
frequency antennas (LF) and a passive antenna module. The remote key
fob incorporates buttons that are designed to perform normal remote
keyless door entry functions. GM stated that the device will provide
protection against unauthorized use (i.e., starting and engine
fueling), but will not provide any visible or audible indication of
unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e., flashing lights or horn alarm).
    GM's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49
CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in Sec.
543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, GM
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, GM
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. GM provided
information on the specific tests it uses to validate the integrity,
durability and reliability of the PASS-Key III+ device and believes
that the device is reliable and durable since the components must
operate as designed after each test. GM also stated that the design and
assembly processes of the PASS-Key III+ subsystem and components are
validated for 10 years of vehicle life and 150,000 miles of
performance.
    The PASS-Key III+ device is designed to be active at all times
without direct intervention by the vehicle operator (i.e., no separate
intentional action to turn on the security system is needed to achieve
protection). GM stated that activation of the device occurs when the
operator pushes the Engine Start/Stop switch to the ``OFF'' position.
Deactivation of the immobilizer device occurs when a valid electronic
key which resides in a remote key fob and matching immobilization code
is verified, allowing the engine to start and continue normal
operations. Specifically, GM stated that when the operator pushes the
Engine Start/Stop switch to begin vehicle operation, the vehicle
transmits randomly generated data and a vehicle identifier through
three low-frequency antennas (within the passenger compartment of the
vehicle) that are controlled by the passive antenna module. The
electronic key receives the data and if the vehicle identifier matches
the vehicle's programmed key, the electronic key will calculate a
response to the vehicle using the challenge and secret information that
was shared between the key and the vehicle. The electronic key will
then transmit a response through the RF channel to a vehicle mounted
receiver which conveys the information to the PASS-Key III+ control
module. The PASS-Key III+ control module compares the received response
with an internally calculated response. GM stated that if the values
match, the system will allow the vehicle to enter functional modes and
transmit a fixed code pre-release password to the engine controller
over the serial data bus enabling computation and communication of a
response. If a valid key is not detected, the system will not transmit
a password to the engine controller to allow operation of the vehicle.
    GM stated that the PASS-Key III+ device has been designed to
enhance the functionality and theft protection provided by its first,
second and third generation PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key III
devices. GM also referenced data provided by the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association (AAMA) in support of the effectiveness of
GM's PASS-Key devices in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft.
Specifically, GM stated that the AAMA's comments referencing the
agency's Preliminary Report on ``Auto Theft and Recovery Effects of the
Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 and the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement
Act of 1984'', (Docket 97-042; Notice 1), showed that between MYs 1987
and 1993, the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird vehicle lines
experienced a significant theft rate reduction after installation of a
Pass-Key like antitheft device as standard equipment on the vehicle
lines.
    GM also noted that theft data have indicated a decline in theft
rates for vehicle lines equipped with comparable devices that have
received full exemptions from the parts-marking requirements. GM stated
that the theft data, as provided by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and compiled
by the agency, show that theft rates are lower for exempted GM models
equipped with the PASS-Key like systems than the theft rates for
earlier models with similar appearance and construction that were
parts-marked. Based on the performance of the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II,
and PASS-Key III devices on other GM models, and the advanced
technology utilized in PASS-Key III+, GM believes that the PASS-Key

III+ device will be more effective in deterring theft than the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
    GM stated that it believes that PASS-Key III+ devices will be more
effective in deterring theft than the parts-marking requirements, the
agency should find that installation of the PASS-Key III+ device on the
Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line is sufficient to qualify it for full
exemption from the parts-marking requirements.
    Based on the evidence submitted by GM, the agency believes that the
antitheft device for the Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR 541). The agency concludes that the device will provide four of
the five types of performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): Promoting
activation; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by
unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of
the device.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that GM has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information GM
provided about its device.
    GM's proposed device lacks an audible or visible alarm therefore,
this device cannot perform one of the functions listed in 49 CFR part
543.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to unauthorized attempts to
enter or move the vehicle. GM compared its proposed device to other
devices NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-
marking requirements. GM compared its device to those antitheft devices
installed on the Chevrolet Corvette, Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac
Firebird vehicle lines, which have all been granted parts-marking
exemptions by the agency. Using an average of three model years' data
(2011-2013), theft rates for the Chevrolet Corvette, Chevrolet Camaro
and the Pontiac Firebird vehicle lines are 1.2698 and 2.7032
respectively. GM has not produced the Pontiac Firebird vehicle line
since MY 2002. Therefore, no current theft rate data exist for this
vehicle line.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full GM's
petition for exemption for the Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49
CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted
from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part
543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition
of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of
future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the
petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device
is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle
lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
    If GM decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if GM wishes in the future to modify the device on
which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543
exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under
this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's
exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
(Signature page, Grant of Petition for Exemption, MY 2017 Chevrolet
Bolt)

[FR Doc. 2016-04568 Filed 3-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 78680]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27852]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-647-000]

Diversion Wind Energy Holdings LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Diversion Wind Energy Holdings LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 5, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 16, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-27852 Filed 12-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE: 6/2/2015

FROM: 		Angela Hackel; OAR

TO:CLEAN POWER PLAN FOR EXISTING POWER PLANTS; DOCKET ID: OAR - 2013-0602

SUBJECT:DOCKETING Of Materials

SUMMARY:

On 6/2/2015 the EPA held a call with EJ stakeholders to discuss the Clean Power Plan.
ATTENDEES:

EPA
      -Angela Hackel
      -Kevin Culligan
      -Laura McKelvey

Mid-West EJ Network

	-Cecilia Martinez
	-La Kimmy Wasserman
	-Shalini Gupta
	-William Copeland
	-Juliana Pino
	-Nickey Sheets


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25890]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10600]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0344]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Manchester Harbor, Manchester,
MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Bridge across Manchester Harbor, mile
1.0, at Manchester, Massachusetts. The deviation allows the bridge to
remain in the closed position to facilitate timber replacement.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 1 a.m. on April 28, 2012
through 4 a.m. on May 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0344 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0344 in the ``Keyword'' 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 email Mr. John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Bridge,
across Manchester Harbor, mile 1.0, at Manchester, Massachusetts, has a
vertical clearance in the closed position of 6 feet at mean high water
and 15 feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are
listed at 33 CFR 117.603.
    The operator of the bridge, Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority, requested a temporary deviation from the regulations to
facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance, timber replacement at the
bridge.
    The timber replacement is vital necessary work that must be
performed when no rail service is operating during weekend hours.
    The waterway users are recreational vessels many of which can pass
under the bridge in the closed position.
    The bridge is normally crewed on a limited basis from 9 a.m. to 1
p.m. and from 1 p.m. to 6 p.m., April 1 through Memorial Day due to
infrequent requests to open the bridge.
    Under this temporary deviation the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority Bridge may remain in the closed position from 1 a.m. on
Saturday, April 28, 2012 through 4 a.m. on Monday, April 30, 2012 and
from 1 a.m. on Saturday, May 5, 2012 through 4 a.m. on Monday, May 7,
2012. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may
do so at all times.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time periods. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 24, 2012.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-10600 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P