[Federal Register: July 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 37210-37211]
[DOCID:fr28jy09-32]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0374; FRL-8936-5]

Adequacy Status of Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in Submitted
Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan for Sacramento 8-hour
Ozone for Transportation Conformity Purposes; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy and inadequacy.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, EPA is notifying the public that the Agency
has found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets for the years 2011,
2014 and 2017 from the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and
Reasonable Further Progress Plan (``2009 Sacramento Ozone Plan''), are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes. In this notice, EPA is
also notifying the public that the Agency has found that the motor
vehicle emissions budgets for the year 2018 from the 2009 Sacramento
Ozone Plan are inadequate for transportation conformity purposes. The
2009 Sacramento Ozone Plan was submitted to EPA on April 17, 2009 by
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as a revision to the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). As a result of our adequacy
findings, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and the
U.S. Department of Transportation must use the adequate budgets and
cannot use the inadequate budget in future transportation conformity
analyses once the finding becomes effective.

DATES: This finding is effective August 12, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kelly, U.S. EPA, Region IX, Air
Division AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901;
(415) 947-4151 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Today's notice is simply an announcement of a finding that we have
already made. EPA Region IX sent a letter to CARB on July 16, 2009
stating that the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the submitted 2009
Sacramento Ozone Plan for the reasonable further progress (RFP)
milestone years of 2011, 2014 and 2017 are adequate. The finding is
available at EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. The adequate motor vehicle
emissions budgets are provided in the following table:

                Adequate Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
                            [summer planning]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Reactive organic
           Budget year             gases \1\  (tons     Nitrogen oxides
                                       per day)         (tons per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011............................                  38                  78
2014............................                  32                  61

2017............................                  29                  48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reactive organic gases (ROG) is the term used in the plan and is
  comparable to the Federal term, volatile organic compounds (VOC).

    Our letter dated July 16, 2009 also states that budgets for 2018
are inadequate for transportation conformity purposes. The 2018 budgets
include estimated emission reductions associated with a number of
commitments for future rule adoption that lack specificity. As such,
the SACOG would not be able to accurately quantify future emission
reductions associated with the commitments. Without additional
specificity, it is also unclear how the 2018 budgets are precisely
quantified or related to the overall emissions inventory and other
measures. Therefore, the 2018 budgets do not meet the adequacy criteria
found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv), and (v). The inadequate motor
vehicle emissions budgets are provided in the following table:

               Inadequate Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
                            [summer planning]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Reactive organic
           Budget year             gases \1\  (tons     Nitrogen oxides
                                       per day)         (tons per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018............................                  24                  34
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reactive organic gases (ROG) is the term used in the plan is
  comparable to the Federal term, volatile organic compounds (VOC).

    Acting in response to a request by CARB for parallel processing of
the final, but not yet adopted, 2009 Sacramento Ozone Plan and related
budgets, we announced availability of the plan and related budgets on
EPA's transportation conformity Web site on March 18, 2009. We received
no comments in response to the adequacy review posting. The finding is
available at EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.
    Transportation conformity is required by Clean Air Act section
176(c). EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans,
transportation improvement programs, and projects conform to state air
quality implementation plans (SIPs) and establishes the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP
means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the national ambient air quality standards.
    The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle
emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) which was promulgated in our August 15, 1997 final
rule (62 FR 43780, 43781-43783). We have further described our process
for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1,
2004 final rule (69 FR 40004, at 40038), and we used the information in
these resources in making our adequacy determination. Please note that
an adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and
should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval action for the
SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be
disapproved.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 16, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-17926 Filed 7-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 120)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35098-35100]
[DOCID:fr20jn08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0642; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-039-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-135 Airplanes, and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -
145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135 airplanes and
Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP
airplanes. The existing AD currently requires replacing the metallic
tubes enclosing the vent and pilot valve wires in the left- and right-
hand wing fuel tanks with non-conductive hoses. This proposed AD would
add airplanes to the applicability of the existing AD. This proposed AD
results from fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer. We are
proposing this AD to prevent an ignition source inside the fuel tank
that could ignite fuel vapor and cause a fuel tank explosion and loss
of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Empresa
Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343--CEP 12.225, Sao
Jose dos Campos--SP, Brazil.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0642;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-039-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On June 1, 2007, we issued AD 2007-12-17, amendment 39-15095 (72 FR
32780, June 14, 2007), for certain EMBRAER Model EMB-135 airplanes and
Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP
airplanes. That AD requires replacing the metallic tubes enclosing the
vent and pilot valve wires in the left- and right-hand wing fuel tanks
with non-conductive hoses. That AD resulted from fuel system reviews
conducted by the manufacturer. We issued that AD to prevent an ignition
source inside the fuel tank that could ignite fuel vapor and cause a
fuel tank explosion and loss of the airplane.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2007-12-17, we have been notified by the
airplane manufacturer that additional airplanes are also subject to the
unsafe condition identified in the existing AD.

Relevant Service Information

    EMBRAER has issued Service Bulletin 145-28-0023, Revision 11, dated
December 4, 2007. The procedures specified in Revision 11 of the
service bulletin are essentially the same as those described in EMBRAER
Service Bulletin 145-28-0023, Revision 07, dated February 7, 2007. We
referred to Revision 07 of the service bulletin in AD 2007-12-17 as the
appropriate source of service information for actions required in that
AD for certain airplanes. However, Revision 11 of the service bulletin
includes airplanes that are not identified in Revision 07.
Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

U.S. Type Certification of the Airplane

    These airplane models are manufactured in Brazil and are type-
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement.
    This proposed AD would supersede AD 2007-12-17 and would retain the
requirements of the existing AD. This proposed AD would also add
airplanes to the applicability of the existing AD.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information

    This proposed AD is applicable to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135
airplanes and Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP,
and -145EP airplanes. The EMBRAER service bulletins were revised to add
airplanes to the effectivities of those documents, but they do not
apply to all airplanes. We have coordinated this difference with both
EMBRAER and the Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil]o Civil (ANAC).
It should be noted that ANAC is not issuing a parallel airworthiness
directive because they have previously issued Brazilian airworthiness
directive 2006-06-02, effective June 28, 2006, addressing the
identified unsafe condition; that airworthiness directive is applicable
to ``all EMBRAER EMB-145( ) and EMB-135( ) aircraft models in
operation.''

Costs of Compliance

    The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators
to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work
hour.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
            Action                Work hours          Parts          Cost per       registered      Fleet cost
                                                                     airplane        airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tube replacement (required by                1  $1,121 (for               $1,201              30         $36,030
 AD 2007-12-17).                                 Model EMB-135BJ
                                                 airplanes).
                                             1  $1,788 (for                1,868             593       1,107,724
                                                 remaining
                                                 airplanes).
Tube replacement for                         1  $1,121 (for                1,201              11          13,211
 additional airplanes.                           Model EMB-135BJ
                                                 airplanes).
                                             1  $1,788 (for                1,868              75         140,100
                                                 remaining
                                                 additional
                                                 airplanes).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-15095 (72 FR 32780, June 14, 2007) and adding the
following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA-
2008-0642; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-039-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by July 21,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2007-12-17.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all EMBRAER Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -
135KL, -135LR, and -135BJ airplanes; and all Model EMB-145, -145ER,
-145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes; certificated
in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent an ignition source
inside the fuel tank that could ignite fuel vapor and cause a fuel
tank explosion and loss of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Requirements of AD 2007-12-17 Including Additional Airplanes

Tube Replacement

    (f) For airplanes identified in the applicable service bulletins
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD: Within 5,000
flight hours or 48 months after July 19, 2007 (the effective date of
AD 2007-12-17), whichever occurs first, replace the metallic tubes
enclosing the vent and pilot valve wires in the left- and right-hand
wing fuel tanks with new, improved, non-conductive hoses, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletins specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, as
applicable.
    (1) For Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -
145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes: EMBRAER Service
Bulletin 145-28-0023, Revision 07, dated February 7, 2007.

    (2) For Model EMB-135BJ airplanes: EMBRAER Service Bulletin
145LEG-28-0018, Revision 01, dated April 20, 2005.
    (g) For Model EMB-135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -
145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes that are not
identified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD: Within 5,000 flight hours
or 48 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first, replace the metallic tubes enclosing the vent and pilot valve
wires in the left- and right-hand wing fuel tanks with new,
improved, non-conductive hoses; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-28-0023,
Revision 11, dated December 4, 2007.

Credit for Actions Done Using Previous Service Information

    (h) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the service information specified in Table 1 of this
AD are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
actions of this AD.

                                Table 1.--Acceptable EMBRAER Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      EMBRAER Service Bulletin                   Revision level                             Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
145-28-0023.........................  Original............................  April 19, 2004.
145-28-0023.........................  01..................................  June 9, 2004.
145-28-0023.........................  02..................................  November 8, 2004.
145-28-0023.........................  03..................................  April 27, 2005.
145-28-0023.........................  04..................................  November 7, 2005.
145-28-0023.........................  05..................................  May 15, 2006.
145-28-0023.........................  06..................................  October 31, 2006.
145-28-0023.........................  07..................................  February 7, 2007.
145-28-0023.........................  08..................................  May 25, 2007.
145-28-0023.........................  09..................................  July 30, 2007.
145-28-0023.........................  10..................................  October 28, 2007.
145LEG-28-0018......................  Original............................  April 23, 2004.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

Related Information

    (j) None.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 6, 2008.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-13923 Filed 6-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 32371]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13915]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1975-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Arkansas; Amendment No. 4 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 Arkansas (FEMA-1975-DR), dated May 2, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 27, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, 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 Arkansas is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of May 2, 2011.

    Arkansas, Lee, Poinsett, and St. Francis Counties for Individual
Assistance.

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.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-13915 Filed 6-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85554-85555]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28464]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-36-000.
    Applicants: TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc., Great River Hydro
NE., LLC.
    Description: Joint Application of TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc.,
et al. for Dispositions of Jurisdictional Facilities under Section 203
of the FPA and Requests for Waivers, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161118-5232.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-37-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Application of Westar Energy, Inc. for Authorization
for Consolidation of Jurisdictional Facilities, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161118-5238.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1946-013.
    Applicants: Broad River Energy LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Broad River Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161118-5246.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2493-001.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: SCPSA Interchange Agreement
Additional Info to be effective 8/26/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161118-5198.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2730-001.
    Applicants: LSC Communications US, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: LSCC MBRA App Supplement to be
effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161118-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-157-001.
    Applicants: Moapa Southern Paiute Solar, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Application for Order
Accepting Initial Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 10/22/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161118-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/28/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-391-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PJM Submits Revisions to
OATT and OA to Add Tie Line Definition to be effective 1/19/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161118-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-392-000.
    Applicants: City of Pasadena, California.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Transmission Revenue
Requirement Revision to be effective 11/21/2016.

    Filed Date: 11/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161118-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-393-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Joint Use Pole
Agreement with Great River Energy to be effective 12/5/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161118-5196.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-394-000.
    Applicants: KMC Thermo, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Change in Status
and Proposed Revisions to Market-Based Rate Schedule to be effective 1/
18/2017.
    Filed Date: 11/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161118-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-395-000.
    Applicants: Ironwood Windpower, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Ironwood-Westar Substation
Use Agreement RS No. 1 to be effective 12/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 11/18/16.
    Accession Number: 20161118-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/9/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 21, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-28464 Filed 11-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11416-11420]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05877]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0194; FRL-9989-65]

Sulfometuron-methyl; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
sulfometuron-methyl in or on sugarcane, cane. E.I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 27, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 28, 2019, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0194, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0194 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
May 28, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0194, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of September 15, 2017 (82 FR 43352) (FRL-
9965-43), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6E8529) by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, 974 Centre Road,
Wilmington, Delaware 19805, now Corteva Agriscience after E.I. du Pont
de Nemours and Company merged with Dow AgroScience. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180 be amended by establishing tolerances for
residues of the herbicide sulfometuron-methyl, in or on sugarcane,
cane; sugarcane, sugar, refined; and sugarcane, molasses at 0.01 parts
per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition
prepared by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, the registrant, which
is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was
received in response to the notice of filing, and the Agency's response
can be found in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined a tolerance of 0.1 sugarcane, cane is appropriate, but that
tolerances on sugarcane, sugar, refined and sugarcane, molasses is not
needed. The reasons for these changes are further explained in Unit
IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including

all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which
there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. . . .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for sulfometuron-methyl including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with sulfometuron-
methyl follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    The primary toxic effect in the toxicological database is changes
in hematological parameters and body weight decrements. There is no
evidence that sulfometuron-methyl is a developmental toxicant based on
a prenatal developmental study in rats and increased susceptibility was
not commonly observed in the database for other registered sulfonylurea
herbicides (SUs). There is no evidence of neurotoxicity or
immunotoxicity in the toxicology databased for sulfometuron-methyl.
Sulfometuron-methyl is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans'' based on lack of treatment-related increases in tumor
incidence compared to controls in the mouse carcinogenicity study and
negative findings in the genotoxicity toxicity studies. Sulfometuron-
methyl has low acute toxicity via oral, dermal, and inhalation routes
of exposure. It shows minimal eye irritation and is not a dermal
irritant or sensitizer. Specific information on the studies received
and the nature of the adverse effects caused by sulfometuron-methyl as
well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Sulfometuron-Methyl.
Human Health Risk Assessment for a Tolerance without a U.S.
Registration for Residues in/on Imported Sugarcane'' at pages 18-20 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0194.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the NOAEL and the LOAEL. Uncertainty/safety factors are used
in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--
generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a
reference dose (RfD)--and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-
threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will
lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms
of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a
lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in
risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment
process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm. A
summary of the toxicological endpoints for used for human risk
assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

   Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Sulfometuron-methyl for Use in Human Health Risk
                                                   Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Point of departure and
          Exposure/scenario               uncertainty/safety     RfD, PAD, LOC for risk  Study and toxicological
                                               factors                 assessment                effects
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations)......  A dose and endpoint of concern attributable to a single dose was not
                                        observed at doses relevant for human health risk assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)....  NOAEL = 27.5 mg/kg/day   Chronic RfD = 0.275 mg/  Chronic Oral Toxicity
                                       UFA = 10x..............   kg/day                   Study (dog) LOAEL =
                                       UFH = 10x..............  cPAD = 0.275 mg/kg/day.   148.5 mg/kg/day based
                                       FQPA SF = 1x...........                            on decreases in body-
                                                                                weight gain in males,
                                                                                hemolytic anemia, and
                                                                                a slight increase in
                                                                                alkaline phosphates in
                                                                                both sexes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)....  Sulfometuron-methyl is classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to
                                        humans'' based on lack of treatment-related increases in tumor incidence
                                        compared to controls in the mouse carcinogenicity study and negative
                                        findings in the mutagenicity/genetic toxicity studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-level. PAD = population
  adjusted dose (c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies).
  UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to sulfometuron-methyl, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
sulfometuron-methyl in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were

identified in the toxicological studies for sulfometuron-methyl;
therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is
unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 Nationwide Continuing
Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in
food, EPA assumed 100% crop treated (CT) and used tolerance-level
residues for the sugarcane commodities. The 2018 default processing
factors were used (in this case, the factors were 1 for sugarcane
commodities).
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that sulfometuron-methyl does not pose a cancer risk to
humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of
assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for sulfometuron-methyl. Tolerance level residues
and/or 100% CT were assumed for sugarcane.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for sulfometuron-methyl in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of sulfometuron-methyl. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Instead of generating chemical-specific estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) for sulfometuron-methyl, EPA used model inputs
(rate, soil mobility, persistence) from all the sulfonylurea herbicides
(sulfometuron-methyl is a sulfonylurea herbicide) to determine coarse-
screen estimates that should exceed upper-bound, chemical-specific
EDWCs for any SU. The resulting coarse-screen EDWCs generated with the
Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) were higher than the
surface water estimates and were used as conservative estimates of
potential residues from sulfometuron-methyl in drinking water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 0.492 ppm was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Sulfometuron-methyl
is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    In 2016, EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs released a guidance
document entitled, Pesticide Cumulative Risk Assessment: Framework for
Screening Analysis https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/pesticide-cumulative-risk-assessment-framework. EPA has
utilized this framework for sulfometuron-methyl and determined that
although sulfometuron-methyl shares some chemical and/or toxicological
characteristics (e.g., chemical structure or apical endpoint) with
other pesticides, the toxicological database does not support a
testable hypothesis for a common mechanism of action. No further data
are required to determine that no common mechanism of toxicity exists
for sulfometuron-methyl and other pesticides, and no further cumulative
evaluation is necessary for sulfometuron-methyl.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10x) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10x, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence that
sulfometuron-methyl is a developmental toxicant based on a prenatal
developmental study in rats and increased susceptibility was not
commonly observed in the database for other registered SUs.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for sulfometuron-methyl is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that sulfometuron-methyl is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that sulfometuron-methyl results in
increased susceptibility in rabbits in a prenatal developmental study.
EPA has concluded based on a weight-of-evidence approach that the rat
developmental and reproduction toxicity studies are not required for
sulfometuron-methyl at this time for the following reasons: (1)
Increased susceptibility was not commonly observed in the SU database;
and (2) the chronic oral dog study, which is the study used to
establish points of departure for sulfometuron-methyl, provides similar
or lower NOAEL/LOAEL values than the rat developmental and rat
reproduction toxicity studies across the SU database.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to sulfometuron-methyl in drinking water. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
sulfometuron-methyl.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute

exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water.
No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified
and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, sulfometuron-
methyl is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
sulfometuron-methyl from food and water will utilize 9.7% of the cPAD
for all infants (<1 year old), the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for sulfometuron-
methyl; therefore, the chronic aggregate risk assessment is equivalent
to the chronic dietary assessment. There are no chronic dietary risks
of concern.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because there
are no uses for sulfometuron-methyl that result in residential
exposures, the short-term aggregate assessment is equivalent to the
chronic dietary assessment. There are no chronic dietary risks of
concern as described above.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Because there are no uses for sulfometuron-methyl that result
in residential exposures, the intermediate-term aggregate assessment is
equivalent to the chronic dietary assessment. There are no chronic
dietary risks of concern as described above.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in the rodent mouse carcinogenicity study
and negative findings in the mutagenicity/genetic toxicity studies,
sulfometuron-methyl is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to sulfometuron-methyl residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high-performance liquid
chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)) is available to
enforce the tolerance expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not
established a MRL for sulfometuron-methyl.

C. Response to Comments

    One comment was submitted insisting that no residues of
sulfometuron-methyl be permitted in food, although no additional
information was provided that would support a conclusion that the
tolerances requested for sulfometuron-methyl are not safe. Although
some individuals do not want pesticides to be used on food, the FFDCA
authorizes EPA to establish tolerances that permit certain levels of
pesticide residues in or on food when the Agency can determine that
such residues are safe. EPA has made that determination for the
tolerances subject to this action, and the commenter provided no
information to support a determination that the tolerance is not safe.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The petitioner requested a tolerance for residues of 0.01 ppm in/on
sugarcane, cane; sugarcane, sugar, refined; and sugarcane, molasses.
The residue data support a tolerance on sugarcane, cane of 0.1 ppm.
This value is also harmonized with the MRL established in the major
exporting country, Brazil. A value of 0.01 ppm may create a perceived
trade irritant if the U.S. tolerance is lower than the MRL in the major
exporting country. Tolerances for residues in/on sugarcane, sugar,
refined and sugarcane, molasses are not needed, since residues are not
expected to concentrate in the processed commodities.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of sulfometuron-
methyl, in or on sugarcane, cane at 0.1 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) nor is considered a regulatory
action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing Regulations and
Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This
action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States

or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national
government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: March 18, 2019.
Donna Davis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  180.704 to subpart C to read as follows:

Sec.  180.704   Sulfometuron-methyl; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) Tolerances are established for residues of the
herbicide sulfometuron-methyl, including its metabolites and
degradates, in or on the commodity in the table below. Compliance with
the tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring
only sulfometuron-methyl, (methyl 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethyl-2-
pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoate), in or on the
following raw agricultural commodities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sugarcane, cane \1\.....................................             0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. Registrations on Sugarcane as of September 24,
  2018.

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. [Reserved]
    (d) Indirect or inadvertent residues. [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2019-05877 Filed 3-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 173)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54462-54464]
[DOCID:fr08se10-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0499; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-06-AD;
Amendment 39-16428; AD 2010-18-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier-Rotax GmbH 912 F Series and
912 S Series Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct

an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the
unsafe condition as:

    Due to high fuel pressure, caused by exceeding pressure in front
of the mechanical fuel pump (e.g. due to an electrical fuel pump),
in limited cases a deviation in the fuel supply could occur. This
can result in exceeding of the fuel pressure and might cause engine
malfunction and/or massive fuel leakage.

We are issuing this AD to prevent the pump from exceeding the fuel
pressure, which could result in engine malfunction or a massive fuel
leak. These conditions could cause loss of control of the airplane or a
fire.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 17, 2010 (75 FR
27487). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Due to high fuel pressure, caused by exceeding pressure in front
of the mechanical fuel pump (e.g. due to an electrical fuel pump),
in limited cases a deviation in the fuel supply could occur. This
can result in exceeding of the fuel pressure and might cause engine
malfunction and/or massive fuel leakage.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will
affect about 50 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
will take about 0.5 work-hour per product to comply with this AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about
$650 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the
AD on U.S. operators to be $34,625.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (phone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-18-14 Bombardier-Rotax GmbH (Formerly Motorenfabrik): Amendment
39-16428. Docket No. FAA-2010-0499; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-
06-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October
13, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Bombardier-Rotax 912 F series and 912 S
series reciprocating engines with fuel pumps, part numbers (P/Ns)
892230, 892232, 892540 (standard version) or P/Ns 892235, 892236,
892545 (version including flexible fuel line), installed. These
engines are installed on, but not limited to, Diamond (formerly
HOAC) HK-36R Super Dimona, Aeromot AMT-200S Super Ximango; Diamond
DA20-A1 Katana; Scheibe SF 25C; Iniziative Industriali Italiane
S.p.A. Sky Arrow 650 TC, and 650 TCN airplanes.

Reason

    (d) This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Due to high fuel pressure, caused by exceeding pressure in front
of the mechanical fuel pump (e.g. due to an electrical fuel pump),
in limited cases a deviation in the fuel supply could occur. This
can result in exceeding of the fuel pressure and might cause engine
malfunction and/or massive fuel leakage.

We are issuing this AD to prevent the pump from exceeding the fuel
pressure, which could result in engine malfunction or a massive fuel
leak. These conditions could cause loss of control of the airplane
or a fire.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) At the next maintenance, or within the next 25 hours of
engine operation, whichever occurs first, after the effective date
of this AD, remove affected fuel pumps, P/Ns 892230, 892232, 892235,
892236, 892540, or 892545.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install fuel
pump, P/Ns 892230, 892232, 892235, 892236, 892540, or 892545, on any
engine.

FAA AD Differences

    (f) This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as
follows: The MCAI requires replacing an affected fuel pump with fuel
pump, P/N 892542 or 892546. This AD requires replacement of an
affected fuel pump with a fuel pump eligible for installation on the
airplane.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI AD 2007-0060R1-E, dated April 20, 2007, and
Rotax Aircraft Engines Service Bulletin SB-912-053, dated April 13,
2007, for related information. Contact BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co. KG,
Welser Strasse 32, A-4623 Gunskirchen, Austria, or go to:
http:[sol][sol]www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com[sol], for a copy of
this service information.
    (i) Contact Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for more information
about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 27, 2010.
Thomas A. Boudreau,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-22147 Filed 9-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 23025]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07944]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-1577-000]

Daggett Solar Power 2 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Daggett Solar Power 2 LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 1, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 10, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07944 Filed 4-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6641-6642]
[DOCID:fr10fe09-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Food Protection; Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS

ACTION: Notice of public workshop

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Office of Regulatory
Affairs (ORA), Southwest Regional Office (SWRO), in co-sponsorship with
the University of Arkansas Institute of Food

Science and Engineering (IFSE), is announcing a public workshop
entitled ``Food Protection Workshop.'' This public workshop is intended
to provide information about food safety, food defense, the regulations
authorized by the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness
and Response Act of 2002 (the Bioterrorism Act), and other subjects
related to the Food Protection Plan as it relates to food facilities
such as farms, manufacturers, processors, distributors, retailers, and
restaurants.
    Date and Time: This public workshop will be held on May 19 and 20,
2009, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the Continuing
Education Center, Two East Center St., Fayetteville, AR (located
downtown).
    Contact Person: Regarding information on accommodation options:
Steven C. Seideman, 2650 North Young Ave., Institute of Food Science
and Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704, 479-
575-4221, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Regarding this document and all other information: David Arvelo,
Food and Drug Administration, Southwest Regional Office, 4040 North
Central Expressway, suite 900, Dallas, TX 75204,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:
214-253-4970, or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: You are encouraged to register by May 8, 2009. The
University of Arkansas has a $250 registration fee to cover the cost of
facilities, materials, speakers, and breaks. Seats are limited; please
submit your registration as soon as possible. Course space will be
filled in order of receipt of registration. Those accepted into the
course will receive confirmation. Registration will close after the
course is filled. Registration at the site is not guaranteed, but it
may be possible on a space available basis on the day of the public
workshop beginning at 8 a.m. The cost of registration at the site is
$350 payable to: The University of Arkansas. If you need special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Steven C. Seideman
(see Contact Person) at least 14 days in advance.
    To register, please submit your name, affiliation, mailing address,
phone/fax number, and e-mail, along with a check or money order for
$250 payable to: The University of Arkansas. Mail to: Institute of Food
Science and Engineering, University of Arkansas, 2650 North Young Ave.,
Fayetteville, AR 72704.
    Transcripts: Transcripts of the public workshop will not be
available due to the format of this workshop. Workshop handouts may be
requested at cost through the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35),
Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A-16, Rockville,
MD 20857, approximately 15 working days after the public workshop at a
cost of 10 cents per page.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This public workshop is being held in
response to the large volume of food protection concerns from food
facilities, such as farms, manufacturers, processors, distributors,
retailers, and restaurants, originating from the area covered by the
FDA Dallas District Office. The Southwest Regional Office presents this
workshop to help achieve objectives set forth in section 406 of the
Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 393),
which include working closely with stakeholders and maximizing the
availability and clarity of information to stakeholders and the public.
This is consistent with the purposes of the Small Business
Representative Program, which are in part to respond to industry
inquiries, develop educational materials, sponsor workshops and
conferences to provide firms, particularly small businesses, with
firsthand working knowledge of FDA's guidance, requirements, and
compliance policies. This workshop is also consistent with the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
121), as outreach activities by Government agencies to small
businesses.
    The goal of this public workshop is to present information that
will enable food facilities (such as farms, manufacturers, processors,
distributors, retailers, and restaurants) to better comply with the
regulations authorized by the Bioterrorism Act, and with food
protection guidance, especially in light of growing concerns about food
safety and defense. Information presented will be based on agency
position as articulated through regulation, guidance, and information
previously made available to the public. Topics to be discussed at the
workshop include: (1) Food Defense Awareness, (2) ALERT: The Basics,
(3) Employees FIRST, (4) FDA Actions on Bioterrorism Legislation (Food
Supply), (5) CARVER+Shock Software Tool, (6) Food Recalls, (7) Crisis
Management, (8) Food Protection Technologies and Methodologies, and
other related topics. FDA expects that participation in this public
workshop will provide regulated industry with greater understanding of
the regulatory and guidance perspectives on food protection and
increase voluntary compliance and food defense awareness.

    Dated: January 26, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-2814 Filed 2-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37914-37916]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15276]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0552]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Cumberland River Mile Marker 62; Canton, KY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters of the Cumberland River extending from mile marker
(MM) 61.5 to MM 63.5 near Canton, KY. The safety zone is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential
hazards associated with the salvage of a cruise ship. Entry of vessels
or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized
by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from July 19, 2021
through September 16, 2021. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from July 17, 2021 until July 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0552 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
rulemaking, call or email MST2, Dylan Caikowski, MSU Paducah, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 2120, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it would be impracticable. On July 7,
2021 a cruise ship grounded near MM 62 of the Cumberland River. Due to
the nature of the Cumberland River and the amount of recreational and
commerical vessels there is potential safety risk during salvage of the
cruise ship to the vessels in the area. The safety zone must be
established immediately to protect people, vessels, and the marine
environment from hazards associated with the salvage of a cruise ship.
It is impracticable to publish an NPRM and consider the comments before
issuing this rule because we must establish this safety zone by July
17, 2021.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the salvage of
a cruise ship.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that
potential hazards associated with the salvage of a grounded cruise ship
will be a safety concern for anyone between MM 61.5 and MM 63.5 on the
Cumberland River during active salvage operations. This rule is needed
to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards associated with the salvage of a cruise ship at MM 62
on the Cumberland River.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from July 17, 2021
through September 16, 2021, or until the hazards have been mitigated.
The temporary safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the
Cumberland River from MM 61.5 to MM 63.5. The COTP will terminate the
enforcement of this temporary safety zone before September 16, 2021 if
the hazards associated with the salvage of a cruise ship have been
resolved. A Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM) will be issued twenty-
four hours prior to the start of salvage operations to notify the
public that the safety zone is being enforced. Vessels will be able to
transit the safety zone when no active salvage operations are being
conducted. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety
zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. Requests for entry will be considered and reviewed on a
case-by-case basis. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at 502-779-
5422 or the on scene designated representative can be reached via VHF-
FM channel 16. Persons and vessels permitted to enter this temporary
safety zone must transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with
all lawful directions issued by the COTP or the designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. This safety
zone will only be enforced between MM 61.5 to MM 63.5 during active
salvage operations of the cruise ship and will only impact a small
portion of the Cumberland River. Additionally, this safety zone will
only be enforced in daytime hours during active salvage operations.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one
of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have
a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
temporary safety zone for the salvage of a cruise ship that grounded at
MM 62 on the Cumberland River. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0552 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08  -0552 Safety Zone; Cumberland River Mile Marker 62;
Canton, KY

    (a) Location. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of
the Cumberland River from mile marker (MM) 61.5 to MM 63.5.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective without actual
notice from July 19, 2021 through September 16, 2021. For the purposes
of enforcement, actual notice will be used from July 17, 2021 through
July 19, 2021.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced only during
active salvage operations of a cruise ship, as necessary to facilitate
safe salvage opertions.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry of vessels or persons into the zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio
Valley (COTP) or designated representative. A designated representative
is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Ohio
Valley.

    (2) Vessels requiring entry into the safety zone must request
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. To seek entry
into the safety zone, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF-FM channel 16.
    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public when the safety zone is being enforced via a
Broadcast Notices to Mariners.

    Dated: July 13, 2021.
A.M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2021-15276 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57807-57808]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23450]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2004-20000]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this

document provides the public notice that on October 10, 2019, Dallas
Area Rapid Transit (DART) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) to extend its waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49
CFR parts 229 and 234. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-
2004-20000.
    Specifically, DART seeks an extension of the terms and conditions
of its current waiver of compliance from the provisions of 49 CFR
229.125, Headlights and auxiliary lights, and 49 CFR 234.105,
Activation failure. This waiver was initially granted in 2005 and
extended in 2010 and 2015, to allow operation of DART's rail-fixed
guideway public transit lines that share a ``limited connection'' with
the general railroad system, specifically with the Dallas Garland and
Northeastern Railroad. DART's petition states that no modifications or
changes have occurred since the waiver was initially granted in 2005.
The petition also states that DART ``has no record of any accidents or
safety-related incidents that occurred in these areas covered by the
regulations where these waivers are being requested.''
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received by December 12, 2019 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic
form of any written communications and comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019-23450 Filed 10-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P