[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57176-57177]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22403]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4611-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Louisiana; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4611-DR), dated August 29, 2021, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued September 7, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Louisiana is hereby amended to include permanent work
under the Public Assistance program for those areas determined to have
been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the
President in his declaration of August 29, 2021.

    Jefferson, Lafourche, Orleans, St. Charles, St. James, St. John
the Baptist, and Terrebonne Parishes for permanent work [Categories
C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance
for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A
and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036,

Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-22403 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62440-62442]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25056]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0889]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Wounded Warriors Benefit, Lake Erie, Huron, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of Lake Erie, East Huron, Ohio. This regulation is intended to
restrict vessels from portions of Lake Erie during the Wounded Warriors
Benefit. This safety zone is necessary to protect spectators and
vessels from the hazards associated with launched pumpkins.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10:00 a.m. on October 27, 2012,
until 7:00 p.m. on October 28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2012-0889. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket
number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit
the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email the Marine Events Coordinator, LTJG
Benjamin Nessia, Marine Safety Unit, Toledo, 420 Madison Avenue Suite
700, Toledo, OH 43604;<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:

Table of Acronyms

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

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The details of this year's event were
not submitted in sufficient time for the Coast Guard to solicit public
comments before the start of the event. Thus, waiting for a notice and
comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard from protecting the
public and vessels from the hazards associated with the event.
    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 this rule would be
impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the same reasons
discussed in the preceding paragraph.

B. Basis and Purpose

    On October 27, 2012, a pumpkin launching event will take place on
Lake Erie in which participants shoot pumpkins from an air cannon into
the lake in East Huron, OH. This event is known as the Wounded Warriors
Benefit. The Captain of the Port Detroit has determined that this
benefit is in close proximity to other watercraft and poses a
significant risk to public safety and property. Thus, the Captain of
the Port Detroit has determined it necessary to establish a safety zone
to control vessel movement around the location of the launch platform
which will help ensure the safety of persons and property at these
events and help minimize the associated risks.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    As suggested above, this rule is intended to ensure safety of the
public and vessels during the Wounded Warriors Benefit. This rule will
be effective from 10:00 a.m. on October 27, 2012 until 7:00 p.m. on
October 28, 2012, and enforced from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on
October 27, 2012; in the event of inclement weather, the zone will be
enforced from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on October 28, 2012. The
safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie within a 2500 ft
radius of the pumpkin launching site located at position 41[deg] 23'
6.7194'' N, -82[deg] 27' 46.6812'' W. All geographic coordinates are
North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his
designated on scene representative. The on-scene representative may be
present on any Coast Guard, state or local law enforcement, or sponsor
provided vessel assigned to patrol the event. The Captain of the Port
or his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF
Channel 16.

C. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses

based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is
not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will
have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other
agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan
recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The
safety zone will be relatively small and exist for a relatively short
time. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that particular area
are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels
may still transit through the area when permitted by the Captain of the
Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential
impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in the portion of Lake Erie discussed above during the
enforcement of the safety zone established herein.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
rule will be enforced for approximately nine hours on either October 27
or 28, 2012.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on 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 determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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 the establishment of a safety zone and,
therefore 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 available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping 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. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0889 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0889  Safety Zone; Wounded Warriors Benefit, East Huron,
OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is designated a safety zone: all
waters of Lake Erie within a 2500 ft radius of the pumpkin launch site
located at position 41[deg] 23' 6.7194'' N, -82[deg] 27' 46.6812'' W.
All geographic coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This safety zone is closed to
all vessel traffic and will be effective from 10:00 a.m. on October 27,
2012 until 7:00 p.m. on October 28, 2012. The safety zone will be
enforced from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on October 27, 2012; in the
event of inclement weather, the safety zone will be enforced from 10:00
a.m. until 7:00 p.m. on October 28, 2012.
    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) ``On-scene Representative'' means any Coast Guard Commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit
to monitor a safety zone, permit entry into the zone, give legally
enforceable orders to persons or vessels within the zones, and take
other actions authorized by the Captain of the Port.
    (2) ``Public vessel'' means vessels owned, chartered, or operated
by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Detroit, or his designated representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, excepted as
may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated
representative. All persons and vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated
representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren,
radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall
proceed as directed.
    (3) All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port
or his designated representative to enter, move within, or exit the
safety zone established in this section when this safety zone is
enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety
zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the
Port or a designated representative. While within a safety zone, all
vessels must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe
course.
    (e) Exemption. Public vessels, as defined in paragraph (b) of this
section, are exempt from the requirements in this section.
    (f) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Detroit or his
designated representative may waive any of the requirements of this
section, upon finding that operational conditions or other
circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary
or impractical for the purposes of public or environmental safety.
    (g) Notification. The Captain of the Port Detroit will notify the
public that the safety zones in this section are or will be enforced by
all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public including
publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in accordance with
33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also include, but are
not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to
Mariners. The Captain of the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners notifying the public when enforcement of the safety zone is
cancelled.

    Dated: September 28, 2012.
J. E. Ogden,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2012-25056 Filed 10-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17561-17562]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07287]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0257]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Delaware River, Pennsauken
Township, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating regulation that governs the DELAIR Memorial Railroad Bridge
across the Delaware River, mile 104.6, at Pennsauken Township, NJ. This
deviation will test the remote operation capability of the drawbridge
to determine whether the bridge can be safely operated from a remote
location. This deviation will allow the bridge to be remotely operated
from the Conrail South Jersey dispatch center in Mount Laurel, NJ,
instead of being operated by an on-site bridge tender.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on April 24, 2017, to
7:59 a.m. on October 21, 2017. Comments and related material must reach
the Coast Guard on or before August 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0257 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this test
deviation, call or email Mr. Hal R. Pitts, Fifth Coast Guard District
(dpb); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The DELAIR Memorial Bridge across the Delaware River, mile 104.6,
at Pennsauken Township, NJ, owned and operated by Conrail Shared
Assets, has a vertical clearance of 49 feet above mean high water in
the closed-to-navigation position. There is a daily average of 28 New
Jersey Transit trains and 8 Conrail freight trains that cross the
bridge and a daily average of 3 bridge openings that allow one or more
vessels to transit through the bridge during each opening. The bridge
is normally maintained in the closed position, due to the average daily
number of trains crossing the bridge. The operating schedule is
published in 33 CFR 117.716. This operating schedule has been in effect
since 1984 and will not change with the implementation of remote
operation of the bridge. This test deviation allows the bridge to be
operated remotely from the bridge owner's South Jersey dispatch center
in Mount Laurel, NJ.
    The Delaware River is used by a variety of vessels including deep
draft commercial vessels, tug and barge traffic, recreational vessels,
and public vessels including military vessels of various sizes. The
three-year average number of bridge openings and maximum number of
bridge openings by month and overall for 2013 through 2015, as drawn
from the data contained in the bridge tender logs, is presented below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Average    Maximum
                       Month                         openings   openings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January...........................................         73         88
February..........................................         54         56
March.............................................         80         94
April.............................................         55         68
May...............................................         60         67
June..............................................         60         71
July..............................................        122        162
August............................................        112        138
September.........................................        143        201
October...........................................        109        117
November..........................................        100        116
December..........................................        100        122
Monthly...........................................         89        201
Daily.............................................          3          7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bridge owner and the maritime community have been working
together since 2013 in an effort to incorporate sensors and other
technologies into the bridge and the Conrail South Jersey dispatch
center to allow for the safe and effective remote operation of the
bridge. The remote operation system includes eight camera views (four
marine and four rail), two forward-looking infrared equipped camera
views (marine), marine radar, a dedicated telephone line for bridge
operations, radiotelephone on VHF-FM channels 13 and 16, and an
automated identification system (AIS) transmitter to provide bridge
status. The AIS transmitter has been installed on the New Jersey side
of the bridge at the bridge and land intersection in approximate
position 39 degrees, 58 minutes, 50.52 seconds North (39.9807), 75
degrees, 03 minutes, 58.75 seconds West (-75.06632). The AIS
transmitter is assigned maritime mobile service identity (MMSI) number
993663001 and will provide the status of the bridge (open/closed/
inoperative) via the name transmitted by the private aids to navigation
as: DELAIR BRG-OPEN

(fully open and locked position, channel light green), DELAIR BRG-
CLOSED (other than fully open, not inoperative), or DELAIR BRG-INOP
(other than fully open, inoperative). The AIS transmitter will transmit
the bridge status every two minutes and upon a change in the bridge
status.
    The remote operation system is designed to provide equal or greater
capabilities compared to the on-site bridge tender, in visibility of
the waterway and bridge, and in signals (communications) via sound and
visual signals and radio telephone (voice) via VHF-FM channels 13 and
16. The remote operation system also incorporates real-time bridge
status via AIS signal to aid mariners in voyage planning and
navigational decision-making, a dedicated telephone line<PHONE_NUMBER>
for bridge operations, and push-to-talk (PTT) capability on VHF-FM
channel 13.
    The remote operation system will be considered failed and qualified
personnel will return and operate the bridge within 60 minutes, if any
of the following conditions are found: (1) The remote operation system
becomes incapable of safely and effectively operating the bridge from
the remote operation center, (2) visibility of the waterway or bridge
is degraded to less than equal that of an on-site bridge tender (all
eight camera views are required), (3) signals (communications) via
sound or visual signals or radio telephone (voice) via VHF-FM channels
13 or 16 become inoperative, or (4) AIS becomes inoperative.
    The test deviation will commence at 8 a.m. on April 24, 2017, and
conclude at 7:59 a.m. on October 21, 2017. During the test deviation, a
bridge tender will be stationed on-site at the bridge and will be able
to immediately take local control of the bridge, as required. Vessels
that require an opening shall continue to request an opening via the
methods (sound or visual signals or radio telephone (VHF-FM) voice
communications) as defined in 33 CFR 117.15(b) through (d), via
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or push-to-talk (PTT) on VHF-FM channel
13. Vessels may push the PTT button five times while on VHF-FM channel
13 and the South Jersey dispatch center, or bridge tender at the
bridge, will receive and respond to the request and commence opening of
the bridge. During the test deviation, if the South Jersey dispatch
center does not respond to a vessel's request, or is unable to operate
the bridge, the bridge tender at the bridge will take immediate action
to respond to the vessel's request for a bridge opening and commence
opening of the bridge in accordance with regulations.
    During the second half of the test deviation period, commencing on
or before 8 a.m. on July 23, 2017, the remote operation system will
incorporate the capability to receive and respond to sound and visual
signals from the remote operation center. Prior to incorporation of the
capability to receive and respond to sound and visual signals from the
remote operation center, the on-sight bridge tender will receive and
respond to sound and visual signals and coordinate an opening of the
bridge with the remote operation center. The signals for the remote
operation center to respond to a sound signal for a bridge opening will
include: (1) When draw can be opened immediately--a sound signal of one
prolonged blast followed by one short blast and illumination of a fixed
white light not more than 30 seconds after the requesting signal or (2)
when the draw cannot be opened immediately--five short blasts sounded
in rapid succession and illumination of a fixed red light not more 30
seconds after the vessel's opening signal. The signals to respond to a
visual signal for a bridge opening will include: (1) When draw can be
opened immediately--illumination of a fixed white light not more than
30 seconds after the requesting signal or (2) when the draw cannot be
opened immediately--illumination of a fixed red light not more 30
seconds after the vessel's opening signal. The fixed white light will
remain illuminated until the bridge reaches the fully open position.
The fixed white and red lights will be positioned on the east (New
Jersey) bridge abutment adjacent to the navigation span.
    During the test deviation period, the bridge owner will collect
data on the performance and operation of the bridge and efficacy of the
remote operation system sensors, technologies, and processes and
procedures. The incorporation of AIS is designed to enhance the
availability of real-time information regarding the status of the
DELAIR Bridge for vessel operators and other maritime stakeholders.
    The bridge owner conducted significant coordination with the U. S.
Coast Guard, Mariners' Advisory Committee for the Bay and River
Delaware, and maritime stakeholders in 2013, 2014, and 2015, regarding
remote operation of the DELAIR Bridge and in developing a plan to
perform this test deviation. The bridge owner also met with the U. S.
Coast Guard and Delaware River Pilots, and provided a tour of their
South Jersey dispatch center and demonstration of the remote operation
of the bridge for interested stakeholders, in January 2015.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
normal (local) operation at the end of the effective period of this
temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this notification and all public comments,
are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be
viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you
go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be
notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    Dated: April 6, 2017.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-07287 Filed 4-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44044-44045]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18753]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0563; FRL-9982-36]

General Dynamics Information Technology; Transfer of Data

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to General Dynamics Information
Technology in accordance with the CBI regulations. General Dynamics
Information Technology has been awarded multiple contracts to perform
work for OPP, and access to this information will enable General
Dynamics Information Technology to fulfill the obligations of the
contract.

DATES: General Dynamics Information Technology will be given access to
this information on or before September 4, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Northern, Information
Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0563, 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.

II. Contractor Requirements

    The Contractor shall provide progress reporting monitoring
performance and finances associated with this task order. The Technical
and Quality Assurance Progress Report shall provide a general outline
of the effort, state the percentage of work completed for the Task
Order during the reporting period, and relate it to the overall effort.
    This performance work statement (PWS) does not provide specific
details on the types of solutions to be offered or the
comprehensiveness of any specific solutions. However, the government
requires the contractor to offer comprehensive solutions that (1) are
based on an understanding of the current EPA IT infrastructure and the
systems engineering, remote sensing and GIS environments, (2) provide
the scope and breadth of remote sensing and Geographic Information
System (GIS) services responsive to present and future needs of EPA,
ORD, and partner user communities, (3) ensure an appropriate level of
security based on government regulations, agency requirements, and
industry best practices, and (4) meet performance levels or metrics
associated with specific areas.
    The Contractor shall prepare a Quality Management Plan (QMP)
describing the technical approach, organizational resources and
management controls to be employed to meet the cost, performance and
schedule requirements throughout task order execution. The contractor
shall employ a program management structure to ensure the efficient
execution of all tasks and subtasks, and the capability to report on
the status of work performed. The contractor shall use a single point
of contact (POC) for all matters regarding project administration and
reporting.
    This contract will involve no subcontractors.
    OPP has determined that the contracts described in this document
involve work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA, in that
pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be
made under this contract. These evaluations may be used in subsequent
regulatory decisions under FIFRA.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under FIFRA sections 3, 4, 6,
and 7 and under FFDCA sections 408 and 409.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the
contracts with General Dynamics Information Technology prohibits use of
the information for any purpose not specified in these contracts;
prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party without prior
written approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and
employee of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information
from unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA
Information Security Manual. In addition, General Dynamics Information
Technology is required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under
which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized
release or compromise. No information will be provided to General
Dynamics Information Technology until the

requirements in this document have been fully satisfied. Records of
information provided to General Dynamics Information Technology will be
maintained by EPA Project Officers for these contracts. All information
supplied to General Dynamics Information Technology by EPA for use in
connection with these contracts will be returned to EPA when General
Dynamics Information Technology has completed its work.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: August 14, 2018.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2018-18753 Filed 8-28-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 165 (Wednesday, August 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51803-51804]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21212]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9933-08-OECA]

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Notification of
Public Meeting and Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public
Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby
provides notice that the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC) will meet on the dates and times described below. All
meetings are open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged
to provide comments relevant to the specific issues being considered by
the NEJAC. For additional information about registering for public
comment, please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Due to limited space,
seating at the NEJAC meeting will be on a first-come, first-served
basis.

DATES: The NEJAC meeting will convene Thursday, September 10, 2015,
from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
    One public comment period relevant to the specific issues being
considered by the NEJAC (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION) is scheduled
for Wednesday, September 9, 2015, starting at 4:00 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time. Members of the public who wish to participate during the
public comment period are highly encouraged to pre-register by
Midnight, Eastern Standard Time, on Monday, August 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The NEJAC meeting will be held at the EPA Potomac Yard
offices

located at 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 16202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions or correspondence concerning
the meeting should be directed to Jasmin Muriel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (MC1601A),
Washington, DC 20460; by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Additional
information about the NEJAC is available at: www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/nejac.
    Registration is required for all participants. Pre-registration by
Midnight, Eastern Standard Time, on Monday, August 31, 2015, for all
attendees is highly recommended. Because this NEJAC meeting will be
held in government space, we strongly encourage you to register early.
Space limitations may not allow us to accommodate everyone who is
interested in attending. Priority admission will be given to pre-
registered participants. To register, visit http://nejac-sept-2015-arlington.eventbrite.com. Please state whether you would like to be put
on the list to provide oral public comment. Please specify whether you
are submitting written comments before the Midnight, Monday, August 31,
2015, deadline. Non-English speaking attendees wishing to arrange for a
foreign language interpreter may make appropriate arrangements in
writing using the above telephone number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Charter of the NEJAC states that the
advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the EPA
Administrator about areas that may include, among other things,
``advice about broad, cross-cutting issues related to environmental
justice, including environment-related strategic, scientific,
technological, regulatory, and economic issues related to environmental
justice.''
    The meeting shall be used to discuss and receive comments about the
nexus between sustainability and environmental justice. Specifically,
the NEJAC will discuss these primary areas: (1) Dialogue about Civil
Rights, (2) NEJAC Charge on improving environmental outcomes through
monitoring, (3) Update on the Clean Power Plan, (4) NEJAC Charge on
Youth Perspectives on Climate Change.
    A. Public Comment: Individuals or groups making oral presentations
during the public comment periods will be limited to a total time of
seven minutes. To accommodate the large number of people who want to
address the NEJAC, only one representative of an organization or group
will be allowed to speak. If time permits, multiple representatives
from the same organization can provide comment at the end of the
session. In addition, those who did not sign up in advance to give
public comment can sign up on site. The suggested format for written
public comments is as follows: Name of Speaker; Name of Organization/
Community; City and State; Email address; and a brief description of
the concern and what you want the NEJAC to advise EPA to do. Written
comments received by Midnight, Eastern Standard Time, on Monday, August
31, 2015, will be included in the materials distributed to the members
of the NEJAC. Written comments received after that date and time will
be provided to the NEJAC as time allows. All information should be sent
to the mailing address, email address, or fax number listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
    B. Information about Services for Individuals with Disabilities:
For information about access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Jasmin Muriel, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request special accommodations for a
disability, please contact Ms. Muriel at least four working days prior
to the meeting, to give EPA sufficient time to process your request.
All requests should be sent to the address, email, or phone/fax number
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Dated: August 18, 2015.
Matthew Tejada,
Designated Federal Officer, National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council.
[FR Doc. 2015-21212 Filed 8-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 1 United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA xxx xxx xxxx Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances February 2006 Agency ( 7508C)

Addendum to the 2001 Ethoprop Interim Reregistration Decision ( IRED)

Regulatory Decision on the Emulsifiable Concentration ( EC) Formulation of Ethoprop 2 Addendum to the 2001 Ethoprop Interim Reregistration Decision ( IRED)

Regulatory Decision on the Emulsifiable Concentration ( EC) Formulation of Ethoprop Case No. 0106 Approved by:

______________________ Debra Edwards, Ph. D. Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division ________________________ Date 3 Addendum to the 2001 Ethoprop Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( IRED) Regulatory Decision on the Emulsifiable Concentration ( EC) Formulation of Ethoprop I. Introduction This document serves an addendum to the Ethoprop IRED, which was completed in September 2001, and which presents the interim reregistration eligibility decision for the EC formulation. The IRED is only one of several steps in the reregistration of ethoprop, which is an organophosphate chemical. The Agency is proceeding with a cumulative risk assessment of the organophosphates. When the Agency has completed its consideration of the cumulative risks for the OPs, ethoprop tolerances will be reassessed in that light, in accordance with the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA). Although the Agency has not yet completed the cumulative risk assessment, the ethoprop IRED, in conjunction with this addendum, presents the Agency's assessment of the dietary, occupational, nonoccupational and ecological risks associated with the use of ethoprop, and identifies risk mitigation measures that are necessary to support the continued use of the granular and EC formulations.

A. Background The 2001 ethoprop IRED established that, provided risk mitigation measures stipulated in the IRED document are implemented and other regulatory decisions are fulfilled, there are no dietary ( food and drinking water) risks of concern associated with the current use of ethoprop. There are no residential uses registered. However, there were estimated occupational risks of concern, based on cholinesterase inhibition, associated with both the granular and the emulsifiable concentrate ( EC) formulations. Through a number of mitigation actions, such as cancellation of certain uses and the requirement of engineering controls for mixing, loading, and application of products that contain ethoprop, the Agency determined the occupational risks associated with the granular formulation are not of concern, and that ethoprop, except for the EC formulation, is eligible for reregistration for use on bananas/ plantains, beans ( snap/ lima), cabbage, corn, cucumbers, pineapples, white potatoes, sweet potatoes, sugarcane, and tobacco.

The Agency did not make a reregistration eligibility decision on the EC formulation in 2001 due to significant occupational risks of concern associated with the use of this formulation with most risks being contributed from dermal exposure. The assessment presented in the IRED showed occupational risks above the Agency's level of concern for dermal and inhalation exposures across most occupational scenarios. The target Margin of Exposure ( MOE) for chronic non cancer risks is   100 for workers handling the liquid formulation. In the 2001 IRED, combined dermal and inhalation MOEs for all occupational handler scenarios of the EC formulation with the implementation of engineering controls, ranged from 0.18 to 8.5. For occupational exposure scenarios where engineering controls are feasible, most of the cancer risks were greater than 4 1 x 10 6, but were at or below 1 x 10 4. The only scenario for which cancer risks exceeded 1 x 10 4 with engineering controls was mixing/ loading EC formulation for chemigation at a 12 lb ai/ A application rate ( 2.1 x 10 4). The Agency determined that non cancer risks are more of a concern when compared to the potential risk from cancer. For more details on the occupation risk assessment, refer to Chapter III of the IRED, Summary of Ethoprop Risk Assessment.

At the time of the ethoprop IRED, the registrant maintained that the actual risk to workers handling the ethoprop EC formulation are much lower than assessed, and agreed to submit refined occupational biomonitoring and supporting pharmacokinetics ( PK) data. Additionally, the National Potato Council expressed a great need for the continued use of ethoprop EC for controlling pests in the Pacific Northwest, as well as in other regions of the United States. The Agency deferred its reregistration eligibility decision for the EC formulation based on the following conditions: ( 1) the registrant was to provide EPA with a final report from the ongoing biomoniotoring study of mixer, loaders, and applicators, ( 2) the registrant was to provide the Agency with sufficient data comparing ethoprop metabolites in rat and human urine, in combination with a previously submitted rodent metabolism/ PK study, and ( 3) if the Agency deems the new PK data to not be scientifically acceptable or upgradeable, and justifies the need for additional data, the registrant is to conduct a human PK study. For a detailed discussion of the Agency's decisions, mitigation actions and conditions of reregistration eligibility, refer to Chapter IV of the IRED, Interim Reregistration Eligibility and Risk Management Decisions.

II. Submission and Analysis of the Biomonitoring and PK Study Bayer CropScience submitted its " Mixer/ loader/ applicator inhalation and biological monitoring study" ( MRID # 456215 01) to the Agency in April 2002. The study, conducted between March and April 2001, quantified ethoprop exposure for mixerloaders applicators, and mixer loader applicators using biological monitoring and a standard inhalation monitoring technique. The subjects in this study used the Mocap ® 6EC formulation of ethoprop with mechanical ground application equipment to treat potato fields in the Central Basin of Washington State in the United States. According to Bayer CropScience, the growers determined the application parameters with the commercial applicators based on the growers' needs, such as the application rate in accordance with the registered label, and acreage treated. Bayer CropScience only monitored the planned activity, and did not determine any of the application parameters. The Agency believes that this study did not involve intentional exposure of a human subject to ethoprop because the exposure to ethoprop would have occurred whether or not the study was conducted.

The Central Basin of Washington State is a large potato growing region of the country where ethoprop is commonly used to control nematodes and wireworms, and the participants in the study account for approximately a third of the commercial grower population in the Northwest. Therefore, the Agency concluded that the activities evaluated in the study should be considered representative of those that would commonly be expected in large scale potato production. The participants were monitored 5 performing scheduled application activities, and the typical operations were monitored. As such, application rates, the amount of acreage treated, the equipment used, and the PPE clothing used varied.

The registrant also submitted the metabolism data, " Metabolite M1: A Urinary Market for Ethoprop in The Adult Rat" ( MRID # 456562 01), in April 2002. The Agency reviewed the study, and determined it to be acceptable; therefore, an additional human PK study is not needed. The new metabolism data indicated that ethoprop metabolizes in rats to M1. The M1 metabolite was quantified in the urine of humans that were monitored under field conditions in the biomonitoring study discussed above. In order to calculate exposures and risks for these workers, M1 levels were converted to ethoprop equivalent   this method was used in all of the biomonitoring samples. It was concluded that M1 metabolizes quickly and is excreted from the body within 24 hours.

A. Biomonitoring Study Parameters The study was performed at 13 distinct test sites and 23 handlers participated in the study. Most of these individuals performed both loading and application tasks, while others only loaded or applied. Mocap ® EC was applied to the potato fields 2 to 3 weeks prior to planting at an application rate ranging from 4 to 12 pounds of active ingredient per acre ( lb ai/ A). Most applications, however, were in the 9 to 12 lb ai/ A range. In addition, the acres treated ranged from approximately 25 to 560. Loading was accomplished through closed loading systems that included a hard coupled mechanical transfer system from 55 gallon drums or closed 2.5 gallon containers. In one case, loading was accomplished through open pour; however, this loading method will be prohibited on the revised labels as a requirement of the 2001 IRED. All applications were made either using large closed cab tractors coupled with deep injection equipment or large special groundboom field applicators. The test subjects wore several combinations of PPE, which varied by individual; however, most applicators wore full clothing ( in some cases Tyvek suits), coveralls, gloves, rubber boots, and respirators.

A typical biomonitoring study is designed to monitor the total absorbed dose resulting from a single exposure event and normally does not encompass exposure over several days. However, the intent of this study was quite different than a typical biomonitoring study in that it was focused on conducting monitoring of a specific, small population of professional applicators to define levels over the monitoring period for those involved in treating potato fields with ethoprop under actual working conditions. Under actual working conditions, workers may be exposed for more than one day at a time; therefore, urine was collected for 4 consecutive work days ( for a few workers, urine was collected on day 5 and 6 as well). The urine samples represented 24 hour periods ( 2 twelve hour samples combined) and a sample was collected 24 hours prior to the first day of work in the study for each subject. In some cases the individual worked with ethoprop during each of the 4 days, while in other cases exposure only occurred on the first day. In most cases, individuals worked with ethoprop only on the first two days of the monitoring period. 6 B. Results and Analysis There were 185 post exposure urine samples collected. Of those, slightly over 50 percent ( 95 samples) were either below the level of detection ( LOD) or below the level of quantification ( LOQ), which were 1 ppb and 3 ppb respectively, or were at a nondetectable level. These results indicate that very low exposures ( i. e., essentially no exposure) occurred in this population for more than half of the monitoring period.

Risk estimates were calculated for the remaining samples using the biological monitoring data in two distinct manners, as follows: ( 1) a cumulative dose approach and ( 2) a daily dose approach. The cumulative approach essentially added the total residue for each individual over the entire monitoring period ( 4 days), where as the daily dose approach considered the single 24 hour urine output and did not account for additivity. Additionally, the arithmetric mean was calculated for both the cumulative and daily dose MOEs for each task performed [ i. e. mixing/ loading only ( through open pour versus mechanical transfer), applying only, and mixing/ loading/ applying]. Given that the M1 metabolite has been determined to rapidly metabolize and be excreted from the body within 24 hours, the Agency believes that the daily dose risk calculations for each task, and the respective arithmetic means, are the most appropriate on which to base its conclusions.

As stated earlier, the majority of 185 samples were below than the LOQ or LOD, and thus non detectable. For the remaining exposure samples, the arithmetic mean MOE risk estimate with engineering controls was   100 for most single day events. The study showed low levels of exposure and associated risk when the required engineering controls are utilized and appropriate PPE are worn. Although in some cases, the workers used both engineering controls and various levels of PPE, the Agency believes that the low exposure primarily resulted from the use of the engineering controls. For example, the lowest single day MOE of 0.04 was a result of the mixing/ loading using open pour, which is prohibited based on the label amendments in the 2001 IRED that require closed mixing and loading.

As expressed above, the daily dose MOEs ranged widely among individual handlers. The Agency believes that these results are to be expected when considering the actual work practices of multiple individuals. The hazard concerns are a key driver of occupational risk of handling the liquid formulation of ethoprop. The study screened for very low levels of exposure ( i. e., low ppb); therefore, the smallest increase in exposure significantly affected ( lowered) the MOE. The level of care with which an individual handles a pesticide greatly influences the overall exposure to the pesticide. Given this study monitored the actual work practices of 23 handlers, degrees of caution will differ. Therefore, the Agency also considered the arithmetic mean MOEs of the daily dose samples with engineering contols   these ranged from 14 to 160, with most averages   100.

In addition to the biological monitoring data, inhalation monitoring was also conducted and used to examine the relative contribution of inhalation exposure to the overall risks 7 associated with ethoprop use. Risk estimates for inhalation exposure were calculated for the twenty three workers in the study using the daily dose approach, which considered one exposure day. The MOEs ranged from 31 to 6874. The calculated MOEs indicate that inhalation risks are not a major concern if an average is considered, and are not of concern for the majority of individual workers. For three individuals, the MOEs were below 100, the level of concern. Overall, these results are consistent with the IRED assessment, and it is clear that inhalation is not a key contributor to the overall risks to ethoprop handlers under the conditions monitored.

Further, the study protocol required that potential adverse effects of ethoprop be explained to each of the study participants. The study report provides detailed descriptions of observations by the study monitors of both the workers' work practices and other observations. There is no mention of any worker exhibiting any adverse effects or anything that would be suggestive of cholinergic clinical signs. Therefore, considering the MOEs for the majority of biomonitoring and inhalation samples, as well as the arithmetic means, and the absence of observable adverse effects, the Agency believes when engineering controls are utilized for mixing, loading, and applying liquid ethoprop the occupational exposure to ethoprop is low.

III. EC Formulation Use and Usage Information and Available Alternatives Ethoprop EC formulation is marketed as Mocap ® 6EC and is currently registered for use on bananas/ plantains, cabbage, cucumbers, ornamentals, sweet potatoes, tobacco, and white potatoes. According to the registrant, approximately 378,000 pounds of active ingredient ( ai) in liquid formulated products ( approximately 64,000 gallons of Mocap ® 6EC) were sold in 2004.

A. Use on Potatoes and Sweet Potatoes Use data ( 1987 through 1996) presented in the 2001 ethoprop IRED described a combined usage of EC and granular on approximately 3% of total potato acres. According to the National Potato Council, the use of liquid formulation of ethoprop has increased 239% from 1995 to the end of 1999. The increase in use is attributed to the heavy reliance on the EC formulation by potato farmers in various regions where specific species of wireworms and nematodes present a serious pest problem, specifically the Columbia Basin ( Washington and Oregon), Idaho, Maine, Wisconsin, and the Delmarva Peninsula. Current usage data available to the Agency confirms the increase in ethoprop EC used on potatoes, and shows that approximately 180,000 lbs/ ai of ethoprop EC were used on potatoes in 2004, and applied to approximately 19,000 acres ( 3% of total acres) across the U. S.

Additional usage information submitted by the National Potato Council suggests that on average Mocap ® 6EC is applied at a rate of 6 lb ai/ A and 10 lb ai/ A for wireworm and nematode control, respectively. However, the labeled rate for potatoes is as high as 12 lb ai/ A, which is applied by commercial potato growers in the Pacific Northwest, as seen in the biomonitoring study referenced above. The liquid formulation is often tank mixed 8 with metam sodium, which, according to the National Potato Council, results in greater nematode control. Although the granular formulation is considered to be equally as effective as the EC formulation, it is believed to dissipate into the soil at a slower rate than the liquid formulation, which, according to Agency data, can potentially result in up to a 3% yield loss due to crop damage. Additionally, unlike with the EC formulation, metam sodium cannot be simultaneous applied with the granular application ( e. g., tank mixed), resulting in the need to conduct multiple passes over the field and thus increase occupational activity, potential for industrial incidents, and cost to growers. Other alternatives are available, such as carbofuran and phorate for wireworm control and 1,3 D, metam sodium alone, aldicarb, and oxamyl for nematode control; however, these can cost substantially more per acre ( up to $ 75 per acre) or are believed to be less efficacious.

The Agency approximates Mocap ® 6EC is applied to approximately 18% of sweet potatoes in the U. S. Sweet potato growers rely on ethoprop for the control of white grubs, cucumber beetle larvae, and wireworms. The maximum labeled application rate is 3.9 lb ai/ A. According to the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center ethoprop EC is applied to sweet potatoes in a manner similar to the application to white potatoes, through closed cab systems designed for in furrow applications and soil incorporation.

B. Ornamental ( Field Nursery Stock Only)

The Agency received correspondence from the Oregon Association of Nurseries ( OAN), as well as several letters from nurseries and growers in that region expressing the need for the use of Mocap ® 6EC on Ornamental Field Nursery Stock in Oregon. According to OAN, in 2004 the wholesale value of Oregon nursery and greenhouse production totaled $ 844 million. The producers of field grown bareroot and balled and burlapped nursery stock, which accounts for all nursery uses of Mocap ® 6EC, are responsible for over onethird of the industry's total value of production, or $ 310 million. According to these growers, Mocap ® 6EC is used for the control of garden symphylans, which present a heavy pest pressure to field grown crops in this region including ornamentals due to the characteristically high organic content in the soil. According to the registrant, there is a need for Mocap ® 6EC for use on ornamentals in areas of California and Washington that face similar pest pressure as well.

In response to the letters, the Agency contacted several nurseries in Oregon, ranging in size from 60 to 1700 acres. According to these growers, Mocap ® 6EC is applied to the fields pre plant with closed cab mechanical ground systems with soil incorporation. Further, Mocap ® 6EC is preferred over the granular formulation due to the availability of application equipment at most nurseries, and the ability to tank mix the EC formulation with fertilizer. The maximum labeled application rate is 3.0 lb ai/ A.

C. Cabbage, Cucumbers, Pineapples, and Tobacco According to Agency data, Mocap ® 6EC is used on < 1% cucumber and tobacco acres nationwide, and is not used in the production of pineapples. The technical registrant confirmed that the EC formulation is not currently being used on pineapples by 9 contacting pineapple growers in Puerto Rico and Hawaii. In addition, according to tobacco and cucumber growers contacted by the Agency, Mocap ® 6EC is not a critical pesticide and better alternatives are available for control of the pest pressures that affect the respective growers. Further, according to the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, in conjunction with feedback from cucumber growers, the application of liquid ethoprop is not conducive to the manner in which cucumbers are grown, on raised beds covered with a sheet of plastic and mulch. Therefore, there is little to no use of the EC formulation on this crop. The Agency did not receive any comments to the 2001 IRED from any of these respective grower groups.

Further, according to Agency data, Mocap ® 6EC is used to treat < 1% of cabbage crop in the United States. Feedback from the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association, which included outreach to cabbage growers, indicated there is little known use of the EC formulation of ethoprop and subsequently it is not considered a critical pesticide for use on cabbage. Conversely, the Agency received comments from the University of California, Davis Cooperative Extension, which indicate that ethoprop is an important tool in cabbage maggot and symphylan control in the Central Coastal regions of California. Treatment on cabbage in this region includes both the granular and EC formulations of ethoprop; however, according to the Extension Agent, commercial growers prefer the EC formulation which allows an accurate and standard liquid closedsystem transfer and application method. Mocap ® 6EC is applied by banded in row application in closed cab tractors followed by soil incorporation.

D. Bananas/ Plantains Ethoprop, granular and EC formulations, is applied around the base of the banana plantings, and sometimes the corms are dipped in solutions of ethoprop to control nematodes. Ethoprop granular is used on plantains and bananas in Puerto Rico at about 40 grams per plant to control banana weevil and nematodes. According to the USDA Crop Profile, 90   100% of banana and plantain acres in Puerto Rico are treated with granular ethoprop. The Agency was not able to find any data supporting use of the EC formulation of ethoprop on bananas in Puerto Rico. The registrant maintains that Mocap ® 6EC is not used to treat bananas in Puerto Rico. However, according to Agency data, Ethoprop EC is applied to about 400 acres of bananas per year in Hawaii to control root knot and reniform nematodes.

Alternatives to the EC formulation of ethoprop for control of nematodes and banana weevil on bananas are the granular formulation of ethoprop, oxamyl and Nemacur ( fenamiphos); however, fenamiphos use is being phased out. According to feedback from the University of Hawaii at M noa, Department of Plant and Environmental Protection Services growers indicated that ethoprop is a viable pest management tool; the growers were particularly concerned with maintaining the use of the granular formulation. According to the growers, the granular application of ethoprop via backpack spreader, which is currently a registered application method for bananas on the Mocap ® 15G label, is more desirable and practical than the engineering controls required for application of Mocap ® 6EC. 10 IV. Occupational Post Application and Ecological Exposures The 2001 IRED also addressed the post application risk to workers, as well as the ecological risks associated with the use of ethoprop granular and EC formulations. For both the granular and EC formulation of ethoprop, the Agency believes the potential for post application work exposure is low. Ethoprop is applied once either at pre plant, at plant, or pre emergence for most field crops. There are no routine activities for most field crops that lead to potential exposures during the designated restricted entry intervals ( REI) on the current labels of 48 hours, or 72 hours in outdoor areas where average rainfall is less than 25 inches per year, as required by the Worker Protection Standard. In addition, crops are treated well before plants reach maturity, which mitigates the potential for post application exposure from contact with foliage. In addition, for all crops, ethoprop products are to be soil incorporated or watered in immediately after application. The Agency has no risk concerns for post application exposures to agricultural workers, and no risk mitigation measures beyond the labeled REI are necessary.

The ecological risk assessment denoted risks of concern for birds, mammals, fish, and invertebrates due to the moderately high toxic characteristics of ethoprop. In general, the use of liquid poses less risk concern to terrestrial species, especially birds, than granular formulations because granules can be available for ingestion. For aquatic organisms, liquid formulations generally pose a higher risk because of the greater potential for runoff or drift into near by water bodies. The 2001 ethoprop IRED required various measures to mitigate these risks to both terrestrial and aquatic organisms, such as soil incorporation ( which significantly reduces the potential for ethoprop to remain on the soil surface to be available for runoff or ingestions), canceling certain uses, reducing maximum application rates and limiting the number of applications, deleting broadcast application for some uses, and imposing buffer zones for the EC formulation.

IV. Regulatory Determination and Rationale It is the Agency's policy to mitigate occupational risk to the greatest extent necessary and feasible. A wide range of factors are considering in making risk management decisions for worker risks. These factors include estimated MOEs, cancer risk estimates, incident data, the nature and severity of adverse effects observed in animal studies, uncertainties in the risk assessment, alternative registered pesticides, the importance of the chemical in integrated pest management ( IPM) programs, and other similar factors.

The Agency believes when engineering controls are utilized for mixing, loading, and applying ethoprop EC the occupational exposure to ethoprop is low, and the associated risk is not of concern based on the MOEs for the large majority of biomonitoring and inhalation samples, as well as the arithmetic mean MOEs, and the absence of observable adverse effects. Further, the most recent assessment of ethoprop incidents was completed in September 2005, and relatively few incidents of illness have been reported due to ethoprop. The only occupational handler scenario that exceeded the Agency's cancer level of concern in the 2001 IRED was mixing/ loading EC for chemigation at a rate of 12 11 lb ai/ A ( 2.1 x 10 4). This scenario is no longer applicable since the only application method remaining on the EC label will be mechanical ground closed cab equipment with soil incorporation. Chemigation is no longer an available application method since use on pineapples is being voluntarily deleted ( see the Revised Appendix A: Table of Use Patterns Eligible for Reregistration for Ethoprop). Based on these conclusions, as well as the discussion of the significance of ethoprop EC formulation to certain growers and consideration of available alternatives discussed in the section above, the Agency determined that liquid ( EC) products that contain ethoprop are eligible for reregistration on potatoes, sweet potatoes, cabbage ( CA only), and ornamental field nursery stock ( CA, OR, and WA only) and are not eligible for use on bananas/ plantains, cucumbers, pineapples, and tobacco.

A. Reregister for Use on Potatoes, Sweet Potatoes, Cabbage, and Ornamentals The decision to reregister the EC formulation of ethoprop for use on potatoes is based in part on the conclusions that the risks associated with the handling of ethoprop EC formulation are not of concern when engineering controls are utilized, based on the analysis of the biomonitoring study performed on potato growers in the Pacific Northwest. The Agency understands that potato production in other regions of the country involves similar use practices and equipment, and therefore, the Agency believes the study is representative of these regions as well.

Due to the similar manner in which ethoprop EC formulation is applied to sweet potatoes, and ornamental field crops and cabbage in the areas of California, Oregon, and Washington, as discussed in the section above, the Agency believes that the biomonitoring study performed on potato growers is transferable to these uses as well. Further, the application rates of Mocap ® 6EC for use on cabbage, ornamental field nursery stock, and sweet potatoes are 1.65, 3.0, and 3.9 lb ai/ A, respectively, which are much lower than the maximum application rate for registered use on white potatoes, 12 lb ai/ A, and the rates used in the biomonitoring study ( 4 to 12 lb ai/ A). The Agency concluded that the occupational risk for use on potatoes is not of concern, and therefore, considering transferability of the biomonitoring study, the lower application rate, the requirement of engineering controls, and the importance of the EC formulation for these uses, the Agency is concluding that the occupational risks associated with use on sweet potatoes, ornamental field nursery stock ( CA, OR, and WA) and cabbage ( CA only) are not of concern as well.

B. Cancel use on Bananas/ Plantains, Cucumbers, Pineapples, and Tobacco Agency data indicate that the ethoprop EC use on these crops is extremely low (< 1%). As discussed in the section above, the feedback from respective grower groups indicated that the deletion of these uses on the ethoprop EC formulation products would not be a critical loss due to lack of use, the availability of preferred alternatives, and/ or infeasibility of required engineering controls for handler activities. Based on this information and the availability of alternatives, the Agency received a request from the 12 technical registrant to voluntarily cancel the EC formulation for use on bananas/ plantains, cucumbers, pineapples, and tobacco.

V. Label Amendment The technical registrant has voluntarily deleted the following uses from the Mocap ® EC label: bananas/ plantains, cucumbers, pineapples, and tobacco. Additionally, as a result of the 2001 IRED, the registrant submitted to the Agency Requests for Voluntary Cancellation of Products and Voluntary Use Deletions. Appendix A: Table of Use Patters Eligible for Reregistration for Ethoprop has been revised to reflect these product cancellation and use deletions, and supercedes the Appendix A in the 2001 Ethoprop IRED document.

This addendum confirms the handler personal protective equipment and engineering control specifications for the EC and granular formulations specified in Table 14 of the 2001 ethoprop IRED document, Summary of Labeling Changes for Ethoprop. No further changes to product labels, beyond what is stipulated in Table 14, are needed as a result of this regulatory determination. 13 Appendix A. Table of Use Patterns Eligible for Reregistration for Ethoprop Site: Application Type Application Timing Application Equipment Formulation [ EPA Reg. No./

SLN No.] Maximum Single Application Ratea Maximum Number of Appls. b Minimum Retreatment Interval Use Limitation Food/ Feed Crops Uses Bananans/ Plantains Application to soil adjacent to stem Growing plants Ground Equipment G [ 264 457] 10.6 lb ai/ A;

rate on a per plant basis:

0.2 oz ( 6 grams) of ai 2 per year 6 months Treat only the soil within a radius of 30 inches ( 3/ 4 meters) of plant stern.

Use of EC on bananas has been voluntarily deleted.

Beans ( Lima/ Snap)

Broadcast Preplant or at planting Ground equipment 8.1 lb ai/ A G [ 264 457] 3 lb ai/ A;

0.21 lb ai/ 1000 ft of row ( minimum of 12   band, 36

row spacing) 1 NA Use of EC on both lima and snap beans has been voluntarily deleted.

Cabbage Broadcast Preplant or at planting Ground equipment G [ 264 457] 5.1 lb ai/ A Banded At planting Ground equipment G [ 264 457] 1.95 lb ai/ A;

0.135 lb ai/ 1000 ft of row ( 15   band, 36   row spacing) 1 NA Banded At planting Ground equipment 6 lb/ gal EC [ 264 458] 1.65 lb ai/ A;

2.4 fl oz of EC/ 1000 ft of row ( minimum of 12   band,

36   row spacing) 1 NA CA Only Only banded applications to cabbage are allowed for the EC because broadcast applications of EC to cabbage have been voluntarily deleted. 14 Site: Application Type Application Timing Application Equipment Formulation [ EPA Reg. No./

SLN No.] Maximum Single Application Ratea Maximum Number of Appls. b Minimum Retreatment Interval Use Limitation Corn ( Field and Sweet)

Broadcast Preplant or at planting Ground equipment G [ 264 457] 6 lb ai/ A Banded At planting Ground equipment G [ 264 457] 4 lb ai/ A:

0.15 lb ai/ 1000 ft of row ( minimum of 12   band, 20

40   row spacing) 1 NA Use of the EC formulation on both field and sweet corn has been voluntarily deleted.

Application by layby has been voluntarily deleted.

Cucumbers Banded At planting Ground equipment G [ 264 457] 1.95 lb ai/ A:

0.315 lb ai/ 1000 ft of row ( minimum of 12   band, 7 ft row spacing) 1 NA Use of EC on cucumbers has been voluntarily deleted.

Pineapple Post plant Apply at base of each plant 1 2 months after planting Ground equipment G [ 264 457] 6 lb ai/ A 4 per year 3 months Do not treat within 120 days of harvest.

Use of EC on pineapples has been voluntarily deleted.

Potatoes Broadcast Preplant to preemergence Ground equipment G [ 264 457]

6 lb/ gal EC [ 264 458] 12 lb ai/ A ( see Use Limitation for additional information on geographical restrictions)

G [ 264 457] 3 lb ai/ A;

0.21 lb ai/ 1000 ft of row ( 12

band, 36   row spacing)

Banded At planting Ground equipment 6 lb/ gal EC [ 264 458] 3 lb ai/ A;

4.4 fl oz of EC/ 1000 ft of row ( 12   band, 36   row spacing) 1 NA The maximum application rate for the treatment of nematodes west of the Mississippi River is 12/ lb ai/ A. For nematodes east of the Mississippi River,

the maximum rate is 9 lb ai/ A. For wireworms,

the maximum application rate is 6 lb ai/ A nationally. 15 Site: Application Type Application Timing Application Equipment Formulation [ EPA Reg. No./

SLN No.] Maximum Single Application Ratea Maximum Number of Appls. b Minimum Retreatment Interval Use Limitation Sugarcane Broadcast At planting Ground equipment G [ 264 457] 6 lb ai/ A Banded At planting Ground equipment G [ 264 457] 4 lb ai/ A;

0.56 lb ai/ 1000 ft of row ( minimum of 12   band, 6 ft row spacing) 1 NA Sweet Potatoes G [ 264 457] 3.9 lb ai/ A;

0.315 lb ai/ 1000 ft of row ( minimum of 12   band, 42

row spacing)

Broadcast Preplant Ground equipment 6 lb/ gal EC [ 264 458] 3.9 lb ai/ A;

6.9 fl oz of EC/ 1000 ft of row ( minimum of 12   band, 42

row spacing) 1 NA Only banded applications to sweet potatoes are allowed, because broadcast applications to sweet potatoes have been voluntarily deleted.

Non Food/ Feed Uses Ornamentals ( Field nursery stock only)

Broadcast only to soil Preplant Ground equipment 6 lb/ gal EC 3 lb ai/ A 1 NS CA, OR, and WA only.

Nursery stock may only be mechanically transplanted into the treated area, and not until 72 hours after treatment.

Tobacco Broadcast Preplant or at planting Ground equipment G [ 264 457] 6 lb ai/ A Banded Preplant or at planting Ground equipment G [ 264 457] 6 lb ai/ A;

0.96 lb ai/ 1000 ft of row ( minimum of 18   band, 42

row spacing) 1 NA Use of EC on tobacco has been voluntarily deleted.

a For banded applications, the maximum rate is expressed both as the maximum rate per acre as lb ai/ A, as well as the maximum rate per linear 1000 ft row, as lb ai ( for granular products) or fl. Oz. ai ( for the EC) per 1000 ft linear row, with the minimum band width and row spacing listed in parentheses. 16 b Maximum number of applications for the growing crop. Note that for tropical crops ( bananas, plantains, and pineapples), the at planting and the ratoon crops may take more than a year to mature. In addition, for some agricultural row crops, in some parts of the country, more than one crop per year may be grown, but each growing crop may only be treated one time ( i. e., one treatment per crop season).


[Federal Register: August 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 155)]
[Notices]
[Page 46614]
[DOCID:fr11au08-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13011-000; Project No. 13178-000]

Shelbyville Hydro, LLC; Prairie Power, Inc.; Notice of Competing
Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comment, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

August 5, 2008.
    On September 7, 2007 and April 17, 2008, Shelbyville Hydro, LLC and
Prairie Power, Inc. each filed a competing application, pursuant to
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the
feasibility of the Lake Shelbyville Projects, to be located on the
Kaskaskia River in Shelby County, Illinois. The Lake Shelbyville Dam is
owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    Shelbyville Hydro, LLC's proposed project consists of: (1) A
propose intake structure, (2) a proposed 189-foot-long, 108-inch-
diameter steel penstock, (3) a proposed powerhouse containing one
generating unit with an installed capacity of 4 megawatts, (4) a
proposed 1-mile-long, 12.5 kilovolt transmission line, and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an average
annual generation of 13 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local utility.
    Prairie Power, Inc.'s proposed project consists of: (1) A propose
intake structure, (2) a proposed 332-foot-long, 12.25-foot-diameter
steel penstock, (3) a proposed powerhouse containing one generating
unit with an installed capacity of 8 megawatts, (4) a proposed 800-
foot-long, 12.47 kilovolt transmission line, and (5) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed project would have an average annual
generation of 27.8 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local utility.
    Applicants Contact: Mr. Brent L. Smith, Shelbyville Hydro, LLC,
P.O. Box 535, Rigby, ID 83442, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> and Mr. John N.
Dalton, Prairie Power, Inc. P.O. Box 610, Jacksonville, IL 62651-0610,
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-13011
or P-13178) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-18472 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P