[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19628-19630]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09497]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0993]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation: Fort Lauderdale Air Show; Atlantic
Ocean, Fort Lauderdale, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a recurring special local
regulation for certain navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean east of
Fort Lauderdale, Florida beginning at the Port Everglades Inlet and
extending north approximately six miles. The special local regulation
is necessary to ensure the safety of the public, spectators, vessels,
and the marine environment during aerobatic maneuvers conducted by
high-speed, low-flying airplanes and high speed vessels performing
inside of the regulated area during the Fort Lauderdale Air Show. This
special local regulation prohibits persons and non-participant vessels
from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within
the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami
or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective May 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0993 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Mara J. Brown, Sector Miami Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The City of Fort Lauderdale notified the Coast Guard that it would
be hosting the Fort Lauderdale Air Show annually over a Saturday and
Sunday during the month of May. The regulated area would cover certain
navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean east of Fort Lauderdale, Florida
beginning at Port Everglades Inlet and continuing north for
approximately six miles.
    In response, on January 25, 2018, the Coast Guard published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Special Local Regulation:
Fort Lauderdale Air Show; Atlantic Ocean, Fort Lauderdale, FL'' (83 FR
3450). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on
our proposed regulatory action related to this event. During the
comment period that ended February 26, 2018, we received 2 unrelated
comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety dangers with aerial maneuvers conducted
by

high speed, low-flying aircraft during air shows. The special local
regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of event
participants, spectators and vessels transiting in proximity to the
event area.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Miami (COTP) has determined that
potential hazards associated with the aerobatic and high speed aerial
flight demonstrations demonstrated during the Ft. Lauderdale Air Show
will be a safety concern for spectators and non-participant vessels in
the regulated area. The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of
vessels, persons, marine environment, and navigable waters in the
regulated area before, during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received two comments on our NPRM published
February 26, 2018. Both comments were unrelated to the regulation.
There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the
proposed rule in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a special local regulation on certain waters
of the Atlantic Ocean east of Fort Lauderdale, Florida beginning at the
Port Everglades Inlet and continuing north for approximately six miles.
The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of
the public during the aerial flight demonstrations and high speed boat
races. Non-participant vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting
through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area without
obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port (COTP) Miami or a
designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the
regulated area by Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated
representatives.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the special local regulation.
Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this regulated
area, which will affect a small designated area of the Atlantic Ocean
over a period of two days during the month of May. Moreover, the Coast
Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public
of the regulated area via VHF-FM marine channel 16 and the rule would
allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides
the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is
one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves
a regulation that would prohibit persons and vessels from transiting
the regulated area during the air show. This action is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1
of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A supplemental
Environmental Assessment supporting this determination is available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.726 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.726  Special Local Regulation; Fort Lauderdale Air Show;
Atlantic Ocean, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

    (a) Location. The following area is a regulated area located on the
Atlantic Ocean in Fort Lauderdale, FL. All waters of the Atlantic Ocean
encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following points:
Starting at Point 1 in position 26[deg]11'01'' N 080[deg]05'42'' W;
thence due east to Point 2 in position 26[deg]11'01'' N 080[deg]05'00''
W; thence south west to Point 3 in position 26[deg]05'42'' N
080[deg]05'35'' W; thence west to Point 4 in position 26[deg]05'42'' N
080[deg]06'17'' W; thence following the shoreline north back to the
point of origin. These coordinates are based on North American Datum
1983.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Miami in the enforcement of the regulated area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All non-participant vessels or persons are
prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Miami or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Miami by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF-FM radio on channel 16 to request authorization.
If authorization is granted, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Miami or a designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced annually on one
weekend (Saturday and Sunday) during the month of May. The exact dates
will be published annually in the Federal Register through a Notice of
Enforcement. The Coast Guard may use Broadcast Notice to Mariners via
VHF-FM channel 16 or on-scene designated representatives to notify the
public of the exact dates and time of enforcement.

    Dated: May 1, 2018.
M.M. Dean,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2018-09497 Filed 5-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 134)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40751-40754]
[DOCID:fr14jy10-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0231; FRL-8834-4]

Castor Oil, Ethoxylated, Oleate; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of castor oil, ethoxylated, oleate (CAS
Reg. No. 220037-02-5) with a minimum number average molecular weight
(in amu) of 1,600 when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide
chemical formulation under 40 CFR 180.960. SciReg. Inc. on behalf of
Rhodia, Inc, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a
maximum permissible level for residues of castor oil, ethoxylated,
oleate on food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 14, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 13, 2010
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0231. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are

available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Electronic Access to Other Related Information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. 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-2010-0231 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
September 13, 2010. 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 that does not contain any 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 a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0231, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of May 19, 2010 (75 FR 28009) (FRL-8823-2),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 0E7692) filed by
SciReg, Inc, on behalf of Rhodia Inc., 12733 Director's Loop,
Woodbridge, VA 22192. The petition requested that the exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance for castor oil, ethoxylated, oleate,
minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) 2,000, (CAS Reg. No.
220037-02-5) when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide chemical
formulations listed under 40 CFR 180.960 be amended to allow for a
minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) of 1,200. That notice
included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and
solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not
receive any comments.
     Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the exemption requested by limiting the minimum number average
molecular weight (in amu) to 1,600. Therefore, the exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance being established in this final rule is for
residues of castor oil, ethoxylated, oleate (CAS Reg. No. 220037-02-5)
with a minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) of 1,600.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(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 use 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 an exemption from the
requirement of 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...'' and specifies
factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an

exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information 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. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Castor oil, ethoxylated, oleate
conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and
meets the following criteria that are used to identify low-risk
polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    7. The polymer's number average MW of 1,600 daltons is greater than
1,000 and less than 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 10%
oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 25% oligomeric material
below MW 1,000, and the polymer does not contain any reactive
functional groups.
    Thus, castor oil, ethoxylated, oleate meets the criteria for a
polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its
conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is
anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to castor oil,
ethoxylated, oleate.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that castor oil, ethoxylated, oleate could be
present in all raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking
water, and that non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The
number average MW of castor oil, ethoxylated, oleate is 1,600 daltons.
Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the
intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since
castor oil, ethoxylated, oleate conforms to the criteria that identify
a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any
potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The
Agency has determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the
public health.

V. 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 castor oil, ethoxylated, oleate to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and castor oil,
ethoxylated oleate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has assumed that castor oil, ethoxylated, oleate
does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold 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 data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of castor oil, ethoxylated
oleate, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk.
For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is
unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of castor oil, ethoxylated, oleate.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Existing Exemptions from the Requirement of a Tolerance

    Castor oil, ethoxylated, oleate, minimum number average molecular
weight (in amu) 2,000, (CAS Reg. No. 220037-02-5) is exempted from the
requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.960 when used as an inert
ingredient in pesticide chemical formulations.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. 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 U.N. 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.
     The Codex has not established a MRL for castor oil, ethoxylated,
oleate.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of castor oil,
ethoxylated, oleate from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules 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 involve any technical standards that
would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique
impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    Although this action does not 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), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this
document, compared to the general population.

XI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this rule in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: July 7, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, the table is amended by revising the following
polymer to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Castor oil, ethoxylated, oleate, minimum number              220037-02-5
 average molecular weight (in amu), 1,600............
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2010-17153 Filed 7-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: October 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 197)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 59586]
[DOCID:fr09oc08-35]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0659; FRL-8727-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Louisiana; Approval of Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plans for the 1997
8-Hour Ozone Standard for the Parishes of Calcasieu and St. James

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Louisiana State
Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning maintenance plans addressing the
1997 8-hour ozone standard for the parishes of Calcasieu and St. James.
On July 20, 2007 and August 24, 2007, the State of Louisiana submitted
separate SIP revisions containing maintenance plans for the 1997 ozone
standard for Calcasieu and St. James Parishes, respectively. These
plans ensure the continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) through the year 2014. These
maintenance plans meet the statutory and regulatory requirements, and
are consistent with EPA's guidance. EPA is approving the revisions
pursuant to section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). On March
12, 2008, EPA issued a revised ozone standard. Today's action, however,
is being taken to address requirements under the 1997 ozone standard.
Requirements for the areas under the 2008 standard will be addressed in
future actions.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 10,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the Addresses section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. EPA, Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this
action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule, which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: September 29, 2008.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
 [FR Doc. E8-23866 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48817-48820]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19402]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 395

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0183]

Hours of Service of Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles;
Regulatory Guidance for Oilfield Exception

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

ACTION: Notice of regulatory guidance; response to public comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA responds to the public comments to its June 5, 2012,
notice of regulatory guidance concerning the hours-of-service
requirements for oilfield operations, and the Agency announces its
decision to retain the 2012 guidance. On June 5, 2012, FMCSA updated
its April 4, 1997, regulatory guidance to explain the applicability of
the ``Oilfield operations'' exceptions in 49 CFR 395.1(d) to the
``Hours of Service [HOS] of Drivers'' regulations, and requested
comments on the additional language. FMCSA also held three ``listening
sessions'' in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Texas to accept public
comments for the docket. Following a review of all comments, the Agency
has determined that no further elaboration on the regulatory guidance
is needed, at this time, and the Agency will continue to monitor the
use of the two HOS oilfield exceptions in 49 CFR 395.1(d). The Agency
also calls attention to 49 CFR part 381, which provides procedures for
persons to apply for individual or class exemptions from certain
regulations provided the exemption would achieve a level of safety that
is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be
achieved absent the exemption. Therefore, motor carriers that believe
the current oilfield operations exceptions do not provide sufficient
relief for their operations should consider submitting an application
for an exemption to the Agency describing an alternative that would
ensure the requisite level of safety.

DATES: This regulatory guidance was effective June 5, 2012, as
announced in the Federal Register on June 5, 2012 (77 FR 33098).

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or to the
ground floor, room W12-140, USDOT Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Basis

    The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 provides that ``The Secretary of
Transportation may prescribe requirements for (1) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and
equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours
of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor
private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation'' [49
U.S.C. 31502(b)].
    The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA) confers on the
Secretary the authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and
vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to prescribe safety
standards for commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). At a minimum, the
regulations must ensure that (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded,
and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of
CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3)
the physical condition of operators of CMVs is adequate to enable them
to operate the vehicles safely and the periodic physical examinations
required of such operators are performed by medical examiners who have
received training in physical and medical examination

standards and, after the national registry maintained by FMCSA under
section 31149(d) is established, are listed on such registry; and (4)
the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the
physical condition of the operator [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)]. The Act also
grants the Secretary broad power to ``prescribe recordkeeping and
reporting requirements'' and to ``perform other acts the Secretary
considers appropriate'' [49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(8) and (10)].
    The Administrator of FMCSA has been delegated the authority to
carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by the Motor Carrier
Act of 1935 [49 CFR 1.87(i)] and the MCSA [Sec.  1.87(f)].

Background

    The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which originally had
jurisdiction over CMV highway safety, first heard requests for an
oilfield exemption when the earliest HOS rules were issued in 1939. The
Commission declined to grant the request, which was based on economic
hardships, stating that ``. . . important as these considerations are,
they do not overcome our primary duty to prescribe maximum hours which
will be reasonably safe'' (Ex Parte No. MC-2, 11 M.C.C. 206, January
27, 1939).
    In 1962, the ICC revisited the HOS rules. The Commission considered
testimony from oilfield equipment suppliers and operators that provided
specialized oilfield equipment requiring special training. The ICC
approved a 24-hour restart provision for operators of this equipment.
This provision allowed drivers to restart the 70-hours of on-duty time
(in 8 consecutive days) during which driving was allowed. The record
also indicates that this restart provision was intended to apply to
operators employed exclusively in the transportation of equipment for
use in servicing the well operations. In other words, the restart was
to be available to two groups of drivers--operators of specialized
oilfield equipment requiring special training and drivers exclusively
transporting oilfield equipment. [Ex Parte No. MC-40 (Sub-No.1), 89
M.C.C. 28-30, March 29, 1962]. This restart provision was codified on
April 13, 1962 (27 FR 3553) as Sec.  195.3(d), and later recodified as
Sec.  395.1(d)(1). Neither the original nor the recodified regulatory
language mentioned specially designed vehicles or specially trained
drivers, although the ICC's March 29 report discussed both.
    Approximately 5 months after granting the 24-hour restart, the ICC
granted without comment the ``waiting time'' exception now codified
atSec.  395.1(d)(2), using the ``specially constructed'' and
``specially trained'' phrases (27 FR 8119; August 15, 1962). Although
the ICC provided no discussion of the reasons for the ``waiting time''
exception, the Federal Register notice included a long list of
petitions from industry groups and equipment manufacturers that were
filed after the March 29 decision. The petitions themselves, filed more
than 50 years ago, are no longer available, and the ICC was terminated
in December 1995 [Pub. L. 104-88, 109 Stat. 803, Dec. 29, 1995].
    The oilfield ``waiting time'' exception (referring to specially
constructed vehicles and specially trained drivers) was codified in 49
CFR 195.2 as part of the definition of ``on duty time.'' [Sec.
195.2(a)(9)]. The 24-hour restart exception, referring to the broader
group servicing the oilfield sites, was codified in 49 CFR 195.3, which
governed ``Maximum driving and on-duty time'' [Sec.  195.3(d)].
    In a 1992 technical amendment published in the Federal Register as
part of a broader final rule, the 24-hour restart and waiting-time
provisions were transferred to become today's Sec.  395.1(d)(1) and (2)
[57 FR 33638; July 30, 1992].
    On April 4, 1997 (62 FR 16420), the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA)--the Agency responsible for motor carrier safety until the
establishment of FMCSA--published ``Regulatory Guidance for the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations'' which provided interpretive guidance
material for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The FHWA
consolidated previously issued interpretations and regulatory guidance
materials and developed concise interpretive guidance in question and
answer form for each part of the FMCSRs. The 1997 notice included
several questions and answers concerning oilfield operations.

Reason for This Notice

    A significant increase in oil and gas drilling operations in many
States has resulted in a major increase in CMV traffic to move oilfield
equipment, and transport large quantities of supplies, especially water
and sand, to the sites. The operators of many of these vehicles and law
enforcement officials have raised questions about the applicability of
Sec.  395.1(d).
    Section 395.1(d) provides two separate exceptions to the HOS rules,
with the two exceptions applying to different operators. Section
395.1(d)(1) states that for drivers of CMVs used exclusively in the
transportation of oilfield equipment, including the stringing and
picking up of pipe used in pipelines, and servicing of the field
operations of the natural gas and oil industry, any period of 8
consecutive days may end with the beginning of any off-duty period of
24 or more consecutive hours. This is commonly referred to as a ``24-
hour restart'' of the 70 hours in 8 days total on-duty time limit in
Sec.  395.3(b).
    Section 395.1(d)(2) states, in part, that in the case of specially
trained drivers of CMVs that are specially constructed to service oil
wells, ``on-duty time shall not include waiting time at a natural gas
or oil well site.'' Under the definition of ``On duty time'' in Sec.
395.2, drivers who are standing by at an oil well site until their
services are needed would normally be considered on-duty, thereby
reducing the hours that they would have available to drive a CMV within
the HOS-rule limits. This exception is often referred to as the
``oilfield waiting time'' provision.
    On June 5, 2012, FMCSA updated its regulatory guidance on these
oilfield provisions in the Federal Register (77 FR 33098). Updates were
made to Questions 6 and 8 to 49 CFR 395.1, which had been published on
April 4, 1997. Although the updated guidance was effective upon
publication, FMCSA announced that it would accept comments to the
public docket until August 6, 2012, to ``. . . determine whether any
further clarification of these regulatory provisions is necessary'' (77
FR 33099).
    The Agency later extended the public comment period until October
5, 2012, to include comments made at public ``listening sessions'' to
be held in August and September (Denver, CO, August 17; Coraopolis, PA,
August 21; Dallas, TX, September 27) (77 FR 46640, August 6, 2012).
Approximately 15 people spoke at each of the listening sessions.
Transcripts of these sessions have been filed in docket FMCSA-2012-0183
at www.regulations.gov.

General Comments

    Written comments to the docket were filed by 81 individuals or
associations. In some instances, the same comments were presented at
one or more of the listening sessions. Of the 81 comments, seven were
filed by the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) and State-level
motor carrier associations. Nine comments were filed by other major
trade associations such as the American Petroleum Institute (API),
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), International Association
of Drilling Contractors (IADC), and similar organizations. About 29
comments were identifiable with individual motor

carriers, well site operators, and equipment suppliers. One comment was
filed by the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), a
public safety advocacy organization. In addition, letters co-signed by
14 U.S. senators and 63 congressmen were submitted to the docket,
expressing concerns similar to those of other parties in written and
verbal comments. The remaining comments were filed by drivers or could
not otherwise be classified.

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

Comments
    Many of the commenting associations claimed that the revisions to
Questions 6 and 8 to 49 CFR 395.1 were a major departure from long-
standing Agency interpretations, and that their content was contrary to
49 CFR 395.1(d). At least, they argued, the revised regulatory guidance
should have been subjected to the full ``notice and comment''
provisions of the APA.
FMCSA Response
    As explained in the Agency's 2012 Federal Register notice, FMCSA
amended Questions 6 and 8 because of reports it had received that Sec.
395.1(d) was being inconsistently enforced in States with substantial
oil and gas drilling operations. A significant increase in such
operations in many States has generated major increases in CMV traffic
to move drilling equipment and related supplies, such as water and
sand, to the well sites.
    Prior to the recent surge, oil and gas production was conducted at
isolated locations without the heavy traffic in vehicles hauling sand
and water that is required by hydraulic fracturing (or ``fracking'')
operations. Traditional production methods appear to have created no
particular need for enforcement activity and thus generated little or
no controversy. As drilling operations began in States having little
prior experience with oil and gas exploration and the volume of traffic
to and from fracking sites increased, State and local officials
received more and more reports of safety problems. Enforcement efforts
intensified, leading to inquiries about the status of sand and water
delivery trucks under Sec.  395.1(d).
    Contrary to the assertion of some commenters, there has been no
``long standing'' interpretation that operators of water and sand
delivery trucks are eligible for the ``waiting time'' provision. The
ICC's 1962 decisions did not address the issue at all. However, the
party that submitted the inquiry now listed as Question 10 in the
Agency's guidance, which deals explicitly with the transportation of
sand and water and was published in 1997, clearly assumed that such
operations are part of the ``servicing of the field operations of the
natural gas and oil industry,'' and inquired whether the 24-hour
restart provision in Sec.  395.1(d)(1) would apply under certain
conditions.
    FMCSA agreed with the submitter that drivers used exclusively to
transport sand and water to service field operations were eligible for
the restart exception, and replied accordingly [62 FR 16370, 16420,
April 4, 1997]. The statement in Question 6--also adopted in 1997--that
``[w]ater servicing companies, whose operations are exclusive to
servicing the natural gas and oil industry, are also covered by the
provisions of Sec.  395.1(d),'' must be read in conjunction with the
more explicit discussion of such companies in Question 10, where their
eligibility for the 24-hour restart is affirmed (i.e., Sec.
395.1(d)(1)).
    Nothing in these Questions and Answers suggests that drivers of
trucks delivering sand and water are eligible for the waiting time
exception (i.e., Sec.  395.1(d)(2)), nor has FMCSA ever issued guidance
to that effect. Because interpretations of Sec.  395.1(d) did not
specifically address the applicability of the waiting time provision to
operators of vehicles such as sand and water delivery trucks, the
States appear to have evolved inconsistent enforcement practices. In
other cases a lack of enforcement of the Sec.  395.1(d) provisions may
have given carriers and drivers the misimpression that their
assumptions about applicability were accurate.
    The regulatory guidance issued in 2012 is the first specifically
clarifying that trucks delivering supplies (including sand and water)
and equipment to the well sites are not eligible for the ``waiting
time'' provision of Sec.  395.1(d)(2). The guidance is consistent with
the regulation itself and prior guidance, and does not represent a
change in the enforcement policies of many (though not all) States.
Thus, the guidance was not a reversal of any long-standing
interpretation or policy. Only in those States that allowed the sand
and water trucks to utilize the ``waiting time'' exception, without any
basis in regulatory language or FMCSA guidance, would carriers and
drivers have perceived this national clarification as a change.
    Comments to the docket and at the listening sessions made it clear
that prior discussions of the Sec.  395.1(d) provisions had not been
precise enough to clarify which of the two separate sub-section
exceptions (``24-hour restart'' and ``waiting time'') were being
addressed. For example, inquiries about mechanical modifications of
sand and water delivery trucks centered around whether the
modifications helped to prove that the vehicle was used ``exclusively''
in oilfield operations and therefore eligible for the ``24-hour
restart'' provision of Sec.  395.1(d)(1). It may not have been clear to
all commenters that these discussions were not about eligibility for
the ``waiting time'' exception, which is different than that for the
``24 hour restart.''

Changes Needed in the Regulation

Comments
    Many commenters asked FMCSA to ``rescind'' the 2012 guidance and
undertake a full rulemaking to revise Sec.  395.1(d). They offered a
variety of suggestions as to the provisions of a revised regulatory
section.
FMCSA Response
    Rescission of the 2012 guidance--even if justified, which is not
the case, as the above discussion demonstrates--would result in
inconsistent compliance and enforcement. It would be unclear, pending
the completion of a notice-and-comment procedure, whether or not
operators of sand and water delivery trucks would be eligible for the
Sec.  395.1(d)(2) ``waiting time'' provision, potentially leading to a
return to inconsistent enforcement.
    FMCSA does not believe that a rulemaking process is necessary. A
fair reading of the Agency's prior guidance in this area demonstrates
that the 2012 revision simply clarified a point that had been implicit
in FMCSA's Questions and Answers for more than 15 years.

Cost and Economic Impact Issues

Comments
    Numerous commenters stated that compliance with the 2012 regulatory
guidance would result in significant cost increases for them to hire
additional drivers who would be needed to cover the hours currently
worked by drivers incorrectly using the ``waiting time'' exception to
exceed the 14-hour ``driving window'' established by Sec.  395.3.
FMCSA Response
    It is possible that some motor carriers that have not been fully
complying with the Sec.  395.1(d) provisions may need to employ
additional drivers if existing schedules have generated overly-long
periods of wakefulness for some drivers. In comments to the docket and
at the listening sessions, some drivers and

carriers acknowledged that deliveries of sand and water may be delayed
at the well sites, resulting in a duty day well beyond 14 hours.
    Section 395.3(a)(2) is specifically intended to prevent driving a
CMV after the 14th hour after the driver came on duty, whatever his or
her intervening activities. The HOS rules issued in the last decade
included substantial evidence supporting the need to limit excessive
hours of driving and work, which can lead to fatigued driving. The
rationale for the 14-hour driving window applies with particular force
to drivers using the ``waiting time'' exception in Sec.  395.1(d)(2).
There is no indication that the ``waiting time'' exception in Sec.
395.1(d)(2) was ever intended to allow driving after long periods of
time had elapsed since the start of the duty day. The history of the
oilfield regulatory language, as explained in the Background section of
this notice, makes it clear that Sec.  395.1(d)(2) was intended for use
by persons who are primarily specialized equipment operators but who
occasionally drive a CMV, as opposed to individuals whose primary job
is to drive delivery vehicles, even if those vehicles might have simple
modifications to help them make deliveries in rough oilfield terrain.
    If some motor carriers had to hire additional drivers to operate
within the Sec.  395.1(d) provisions, that would merely place them on
par (``level the playing field'') with motor carriers that have been in
compliance all along.

Road and Well-Site Safety Issues

Comments
    Several commenters claimed that a lack of safety evidence exists to
justify what they deemed to be a major regulatory change.
FMCSA Response
    Because the 2012 notice changed neither the regulation nor the
substance of the Agency's regulatory guidance, no statistical
evaluation of the clarified guidance was needed, as would be required
in a notice-and-comment rulemaking. Allowing drivers of trucks making
routine deliveries of sand and water to oilfields to utilize the
``waiting time'' exception would enable them to resume driving
immediately after waiting for many hours and then unloading, which has
never been the case with operators of specialized equipment who drive
only occasionally, despite the ``waiting'' time exception. Any such
reading of Sec.  395.1(d) is neither consistent with the history of the
oilfield exceptions nor justified by modern research on fatigue.

Future Activity

    FMCSA believes the 2012 amendment of the regulatory guidance has
resolved most of the confusion regarding applicability of Sec.
395.1(d) to oilfield operations. As with any regulation, unique
situations may arise that require further regulatory guidance of an
informal or formal nature, and FMCSA will consider those scenarios on a
case-by-case basis.
    The Agency will continue to monitor use and impacts of this HOS
exception within the substantial constraints of existing data
collection systems of records.

Consideration of Regulatory Alternatives: 49 CFR Part 381 Exemptions

    FMCSA acknowledges the concerns of the commenters and participants
in the three listening sessions. While the guidance is consistent with
the underlying regulations, the Agency believes there are options
available to the oil and natural gas industries that could be used to
address their needs for hours-of-service flexibility.
    FMCSA calls attention to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 391,
``Subpart C--Procedures for Applying for Exemptions.'' Sections
381.300-.381.331 explain a procedure through which any affected persons
or classes of persons may apply for an exemption from the HOS rules,
among others, if the applicant can justify that operation under the
proposed exemption would ``. . . achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be
obtained by complying with the regulations . . .'' [Sec.  381.310
(b)(5)]. Exemptions may be granted for a maximum 2-year period and may
be renewed. Therefore, motor carriers that believe the current oilfield
operations exceptions do not provide sufficient relief for their
operations should consider submitting an application for an exemption
to the Agency describing an alternative that would ensure the requisite
level of safety.
    The Agency emphasizes the exemption process is an effective process
for addressing issues concerning specific motor carriers and in some
instances, segments of the industry. The process includes an
opportunity for notice-and-comment to ensure transparency and public
participation as the Agency considers an exemption application from an
individual carrier, group of carriers, or an association submitting the
request on behalf of the industry.
    The Agency invites interested parties to visit www.regulations.gov
for previously published Federal Register notices concerning exemptions
to see examples of how the Agency notifies the public about the
exemption applications, complete copies of the exemption applications,
the types of public comments received in response to the notices, and
the Agency's response to the public comments and final decisions.

    Issued on: August 5, 2013.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-19402 Filed 8-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14734-14735]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06184]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0174]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Urbanna Creek, Urbanna, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 200-yard radius of Dozier's Point Urbanna
Marina on Urbanna Creek. The safety zone is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards
created by a marina fire and the resulting investigation and clean up
efforts. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Hampton
Roads.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from March 18, 2016
through 4 p.m. on April 8, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement,
actual notice will be used from 4 p.m. on March 4, 2016 through March
18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0174 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Lisa Woodman, Waterways Management, Sector
Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be
``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,'' due
to the exigent need to conduct investigations and clean up operations
following an explosion and fire that occurred at Dozier's Point Urbanna
Marina in Urbanna Creek, Urbanna, VA on the morning of February 29,
2016. Two persons lost their lives in the fire and over 50 boats burned
or sustained damage. The nature of the incident and extent of damage
makes it impracticable to provide a full comment period due to the lack
of time. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must
establish this safety zone to continue the prior safety zone that is
expiring 4 p.m. on March 4, 2016 that was established for the fire
response.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Given the severity of
the incident, a delay in enacting this safety zone would be contrary to
public interest because recovery actions are necessary to ensure the
navigable waters do not contain safety hazards as a result of the
explosion and subsequent fire.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Hampton Roads (COTP) has determined that
hazards resulting from the fire as well as clean-up and removal
operations will be a safety concern for anyone within a 300-yard radius
of the Dozier's Point Urbanna Marina. This rule is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters
within the safety zone while investigative and clean up operations are
being conducted in response to the substantial damage which resulted
from the fire.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 4 p.m. on March 4, 2016
through 4 p.m. on April 8, 2016. The safety zone will cover all
navigable waters within 300 yards of vessels and machinery being used
by personnel to conduct recovery operations at Dozier's Point Urbanna
Marina. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while
recovery operations are conducted. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. The safety zone will impact
a small designated area of Urbanna Creek in Urbanna, VA as needed to
support clean-up and until recovery operations are complete. The safety
zone is in an area where and during a time of year when vessel traffic
is normally low. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice
to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this
action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone lasting five weeks that will prohibit entry
within 500 yards of vessels and being used by personnel to conduct
recovery operations. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are not required. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0174 to read as follows:

165.T05-0174   Safety Zone, Urbanna Creek; Urbanna, VA

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, Captain of the
Port means the Commander, Sector Hampton Roads. Representative means
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: specified waters
of the Captain of the Port, Sector Hampton Roads zone, as defined in 33
CFR 3.25-10, waters of Urbanna Creek within a 200-yard radius of
Dozier's Point Urbanna Marina in Urbanna, VA.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated
representatives.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this
safety zone shall:
    (i) Contact on scene recovery vessels via VHF channel 13 and 16 for
passage instructions.
    (ii) If on scene proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant
or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a
U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
    (3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads can be reached through
the Sector Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia
at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) The Coast Guard Representatives enforcing the safety zone can
be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65Mhz) and
channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced as necessary
until 4 p.m. on April 8, 2016.

    Dated: March 4, 2016.
Christopher S. Keane,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2016-06184 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P