[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67347-67348]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23607]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0439; FRL-9953-43-OW]

Request for Public Comments To Be Sent to Versar, Inc., on an
Interim List of Perchlorate in Drinking Water Expert Peer Reviewers and
Draft Peer Review Charge Questions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing
the release of materials for public comment that relate to the expert
peer review of documents intended to support the EPA's Safe Drinking
Water Act decision making for perchlorate. This request is one of two
Federal Register notices being published concurrently, seeking public
comment on two separate sets of materials. This notice requests
comments on the interim list of peer review candidates and the draft
charge for the expert peer review panel, to be sent to EPA's
contractor, Versar, Inc. The comments will be considered to help inform
the final selection of expert panelists and the development of the peer
review panel's charge. A companion notice, published today, requests
comments on draft materials to inform the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act
decision making on perchlorate; those materials are the draft
Biologically Based Dose-Response Model and an accompanying draft model
report entitled ``Biologically Based Dose-Response Models for the
Effect of Perchlorate on Thyroid Hormones in the Infant, Breast Feeding
Mother, Pregnant Mother, and Fetus: Model Development, Revision, and
Preliminary Dose-Response Analyses.'' Versar, Inc., will consider the
comments received on this notice in selecting the final peer review
panel, which will collectively provide appropriate expertise spanning
the subject matter areas covered by the draft model and draft report
and, to the extent feasible, best provide a balance of perspectives.

DATES: Comments on the draft peer review panel charge questions and
interim list of peer review candidates must be received on or before
October 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments on the interim list of peer review
candidates and draft charge to Versar, Inc., no later than October 21,
2016 by one of the following methods:
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: Perchlorate
Peer Review).
     Mail: Versar, Inc., 6850 Versar Center, Springfield, VA
22151 (ATTN: David Bottimore).
    Please be advised that public comments are subject to release under
the Freedom of Information Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning the interim list
of expert peer review candidates and draft peer review charge questions
should be directed to Versar, Inc., at 6850 Versar Center, Springfield,
VA 22151; by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: Perchlorate
Peer Review); or by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> (ask for David Bottimore).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Process of Obtaining Candidate Reviewers

    Versar, Inc., will assemble a panel of scientific experts to
evaluate the draft BBDR model and draft report. As part of the peer
review process, EPA announced a public nomination period from March 1,
2016, to March 31, 2016, in the Federal Register (81 FR 10617; March 1,
2016), during which members of the public were able to nominate
scientific experts whom have knowledge and experience in one or more of
the following areas: (1) Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK),
physiologically-based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PBPK/PD) and/or
Biologically Based Dose-Response (BBDR) modeling, (2) fetal and
neonatal thyroid endocrinology (clinical and experimental), (3) iodide
homeostasis, and (4) perchlorate toxicology and mode of action or
adverse outcome pathway.
    On June 3, 2016, the Agency announced in the Federal Register (81
FR 35760) that, to achieve efficiency, it was expanding the scope of
the peer review announced in March to include review of a draft
approach for application of the draft BBDR model, to inform the
development of a perchlorate MCLG. EPA has reevaluated that approach in
response to concerns that a simultaneous review of a methodology to
applying the model to develop a perchlorate MCLG would not allow the
Agency or peer reviews to consider peer reviewer comments on the draft
BBDR model prior to evaluating the alternative methodologies to
applying the model to derive an MCLG. Today's notice therefore seeks
input only on the peer review of the model, not its application. EPA
will seek input on a second peer review of methods for applying the
model to inform development of a perchlorate MCLG in a future notice.
    Versar, Inc., also conducted an independent search for scientific
experts to augment the list of publically-nominated candidates. In
total, the contractor evaluated 35 candidates, including those
nominated during the public nomination periods and those identified by
the contractor.

Selection Process

    Versar, Inc., considered and screened all candidates against the
selection criteria described in the March 1, 2016 Federal Register
notice (81 FR 10617), which included the candidates being free of any
conflict of interest and being available to participate in-person in
the peer review meeting in the Washington, DC area, which will be open
to the public, projected to occur in late 2016 (exact date to be
determined). Following the screening process, the contractor narrowed
the list of potential reviewers to 19 candidates. EPA is now soliciting
comments on this list. EPA requests that the public provide relevant
information or documentation on the experts that

the contractor should consider in evaluating these candidates. Once the
public comments on the interim list of candidates have been reviewed
and considered, the contractor will select the final list of peer
reviewers.

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

    Peer reviewers will be charged with evaluating and preparing
written comments on the draft BBDR model and draft report. Versar,
Inc., will provide reviewers with a summary of public comments on the
draft BBDR model and report submitted to EPA's docket (ID number EPA-
HQ-OW-2016-0438) during the 45-day public comment period, for their
consideration. Reviewers will participate in the meeting expected to be
held in the Washington, DC metro area in early 2017 (exact date to be
determined) to discuss the scientific basis supporting these materials.
Following the meeting, Versar, Inc., will provide a report to EPA
summarizing the peer reviewer's evaluation of the scientific and
technical merit of the draft model and draft report and their responses
to the charge questions. EPA will make the final report available to
the public (exact date to be determined). In preparing the final BBDR
model and report, EPA will consider Versar's report as well as the
written public comments submitted to the docket.

II. Interim List of Peer Reviewers

    Versar, Inc., is considering the following candidates for the peer
review panel. Biosketches are available through the docket at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0439). After review
and consideration of public comments, Versar, Inc., will select the
final peer reviewers from this list, who will, collectively, best
provide expertise spanning the previously mentioned areas of knowledge
and experience and, to the extent feasible, best provide a balance of
perspectives. EPA will announce the peer review panel meeting date,
location and registration details along with the final list of peer
reviewers selected by Versar, Inc., at least 30 days prior to the
meeting.
Name of Nominee, Degree, Place of Employment
1. Hugh A. Barton, Ph.D., Pfizer, Inc.
2. Nancy Carrasco, M.D., Yale School of Medicine
3. Jonathan Chevrier, Ph.D., McGill University Faculty of Medicine
4. Claude Emond, Ph.D., University of Montreal
5. John P. Gibbs, M.D., Tronox LLC
6. Dale Hattis, Ph.D., George Perkins Marsh Institute, Clark University
7. William L. Hayton, Ph.D., The Ohio State University/College of
Pharmacy
8. Judy S. LaKind, Ph.D., LaKind Associates, LLC
9. Angela M. Leung, M.D., M.Sc., UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine
10. Paul H. Lipkin, M.D., Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
11. Michael H. Lumpkin, Ph.D., DABT, Center for Toxicology and
Environmental Health, LLC
12. Elaine A. Merrill, Ph.D., Henry Jackson Foundation for the
Advancement of Military Medicine at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
13. Elizabeth N. Pearce, M.D., M.Sc., Boston Medical Center/Boston
University School of Medicine
14. Stephen M. Roberts, Ph.D., University of Florida
15. Joanne F. Rovet, Ph.D., The Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto)
16. Craig Steinmaus, M.D., M.P.H., University of California, Berkeley
17. Justin G. Teeguarden, Ph.D., Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
18. Graham R. Williams, Ph.D., Imperial College London
19. R. Thomas Zoeller, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts

III. Draft Peer Review Charge Questions

    The draft peer review charge questions are available through the
docket at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-
0439).

    Dated: September 23, 2016.
Joel Beauvais,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2016-23607 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86664-86665]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27440]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0330]

Removal of Smith Point Traffic Separation Scheme From Nautical
Charts

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Smith Point Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) is a vessel
traffic routing measure which lies on inland waters, at the mouth of
the Potomac River. The Coast Guard announces its intention to have the
TSS removed from the nautical charts, and from the U.S. Coast Pilot. We
will also change the buoy which identifies the TSS from a special
purpose lighted yellow buoy to a red and white striped lighted mid-
channel buoy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice, call or email Matthew Creelman, Marine Planner at Fifth Coast
Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

FR Federal Register
DHS Department of Homeland Security
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
TSS Traffic Separation Scheme
USCG United States Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security

II. Background and Purpose

    The Smith Point TSS, a vessel traffic routing measure, lies in
inland waters, as defined in 33 CFR 2.26, in the Chesapeake Bay, at the
mouth of the Potomac River, just south of the Maryland/Virginia border.
It was never formally established by rule, and exists only as a
notation on NOAA nautical charts. On August 21, 2023 (88 FR 56850), we
issued a notice of inquiry, requesting comments on whether the TSS
should be removed from the NOAA charts and the U.S. Coast Pilot.
(Issued by NOAA, the U.S. Coast Pilot is a series of nautical books
that cover a variety of information important to navigators of coastal
and intracoastal waters and the Great Lakes.) There was 90-day comment
period.
    During the comment period, USCG received one comment. The comment,
from the Association of Maryland Pilots, supported the decision to
remove the TSS, noting that conditions have changed since the TSS was
first listed on the nautical charts in 1969, and that

today, the TSS is an impediment to safe navigation in the area. The TSS
identifies separate northbound and southbound travel lanes which
accommodated both lanes of vessel traffic in 1969, given the size of
vessels operating in the area then. Today, however, vessels with deeper
drafts, which are limited to operating in the waters the TSS covers,
travel in the area, and they must travel in opposing lanes to avoid the
risk of grounding.
    The comment, and supporting documents, are available in the public
docket and can be viewed at https://www.regulation.gov. To view
documents, in the ``Search'' box insert ``USCG-2023-0330'' and click
``Search.'' Then select ``Supporting & Related Material'' in the
Document Type column.
    The Smith Point TSS no longer serves a useful purpose, and the
notice of inquiry USCG published in August confirms that there are no
concerns from the public about removing it and therefore the USCG has
decided to move forward with the removal of the vessel traffic routing
measure.

III. Authority and Action To Be Taken

    Under 46 U.S.C. 70001(a)(4), as delegated, USCG may control vessel
traffic in areas subject to the jurisdiction of the United States that
it determines to be hazardous by, among other means, establishing
vessel traffic routing schemes. Based on the analysis of historical
vessel traffic patterns and the comment received, the Coast Guard will:
    1. Request NOAA remove the Smith Point TSS chart feature from all
applicable charts and update the U.S. Coast Pilot to remove the TSS and
reflect changes to the on-scene navigational buoy the USCG will deploy.
    2. Change the Smith Point Fairway Lighted Buoy SP (LLNR 7490) to
Smith Point Lighted Buoy SP, a white and red striped Safe Water Buoy
and the light will be changed from a yellow to white with a Morse Code
``A'' flash characteristic.

    Dated: December 8, 2023.
Shannon N. Gilreath,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2023-27440 Filed 12-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P