[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 120 (Thursday, June 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37508-37509]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13444]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0198, FRL-9960-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Land Disposal Restrictions (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Land Disposal Restrictions (EPA
ICR Number 1442.24, OMB Control Number 2050-0085) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through June 30, 2022. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on November 10, 2021
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-
2018-0198, to EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method) or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 2821T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Vyas, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), as amended, requires that EPA develop standards for
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal as may be necessary to
protect human health and the environment. Subsections 3004(d), (e), and
(g) require EPA to promulgate regulations that

prohibit the land disposal of hazardous waste unless it meets specified
treatment standards described in subsection 3004(m).
    The regulations implementing these requirements are codified in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 268. EPA requires that
facilities maintain the data outlined in this ICR so that the Agency
can ensure that land disposed waste meets the treatment standards. EPA
strongly believes that the recordkeeping requirements are necessary for
the agency to fulfill its congressional mandate to protect human health
and the environment.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Private sector and State, Local, or
Tribal governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 268).
    Estimated number of respondents: 77,612.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 517,369 hours per year. Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $87,510,974 (per year), which includes
$45,898,132 in annualized capital and operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: The total annual hour burden in this ICR
decreased by 82,701 hours from the currently approved ICR. This
decrease is due to a decrease in the number of respondents.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-13444 Filed 6-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  >

<EPA Registration Division contact: Mary Waller<PHONE_NUMBER> >

<>

<Nichino America, Inc.>

<Pesticide Petition 0F6159>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP# 0F6159) from  Nichino
America, Inc., 4550 New Linden Hill Road Suite 501 Wilmington, DE 19808
proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180. 484
by establishing new or indirect new indirect or inadvertent residues for
the fungicide, flutolanil [N-(3-(1-methylethoxy) phenyl) -2-
(trifluoromethyl) benzamide] and its metabolite, M-4,
desisopropylflutolanil [N-(3-hydroxyphenyl)-2-(trifluromethyl)
benzamide], expressed as 2-trifluoromethyl benzoic acid and calculated
as flutolanil in or on the following raw agricultural commodities (RACs)
and feed commodities: soybean forage at 9.0 parts per million (ppm),
soybean hay at 2.0 parts per million (ppm), soybean seed 0.20 parts per
million (ppm); wheat bran at 0.30 parts per million (ppm), wheat forage
at 2.0 parts per million (ppm), wheat grain at 0.10 parts per million
(ppm), wheat hay at 1.0 parts per million (ppm), wheat straw at 0.30
parts per million (ppm).

 >

<EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry

>

<1. Plant metabolism. The metabolic profile of flutolanil is well
understood and has been elucidated in the three crops:  peanuts, rice,
and cucumber. The metabolic profile is similar in all crops.  The major
route of degradation is 4’-0-dealkylation to desisopropylflutolanil,
followed by conjugation.  Other metabolites may occur at very low levels
due hydroxylation and oxidation of the side chain, hydroxylation of the
aniline ring, and methylation of the hydroxyl groups.  These minor
metabolites were also subject to conjugation.  The residues of concern
are the parent, flutolanil, and M-4.

>

<2. Analytical method. A previously submitted analytical method
designated AU-95R-04 (MRID 45104001), a gas chromatography, mass
spectrometry detection method has been independently validated and is
adequate for enforcement purposes for flutolanil residue detection in
soybean and wheat raw agricultural commodities.  A multi-residue method
for flutolanil has been previously submitted.

>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. Ten rotational crop field residue trials
were conducted in 1994 in Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Virginia,
Oklahoma and North Carolina.  Flutolanil formulated as Moncut 70WP was
applied to bare soil at a total seasonal rate for peanuts (the highest
labeled rate for use on food crops) of 2.0 lb. a.i./acre, followed by
planting of the typical rotational crops wheat and soybeans at 30 days
after application.  The rotational crops were grown to maturity and
samples of relevant commodities collected at the appropriate
developmental stage.  These applications of flutolanil resulted in
residues that are within the proposed crop tolerances.  Processing
studies were conducted for soybeans and wheat using samples of wheat
grain and soybean seed collected from one of the trial sites above,
using normal agricultural practice.  Residues of concern were within the
proposed crop tolerances.>

<B. Toxicological Profile

<We have conducted an extensive battery of toxicology studies with
flutolanil.  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.  The nature of
the toxic effects caused by flutolanil is discussed in Unit III.A. of
the Final Rule on Flutolanil Pesticide Tolerance published in the
Federal Register on February 20, 2001 (66 FR 10817) (FRL-6761-1).>

1. Acute toxicity.  [N/A-Remove]

<	2. Genotoxicty. [N/A-Remove]>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [N/A-Remove]>

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. [N/A Remove]>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. [N/A- Remove]>

<>

>

<We have conducted an extensive battery of toxicology studies with
flutolanil.  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.  The nature of
the toxic effects caused by flutolanil is discussed in Unit III.A. of
the Final Rule on Flutolanil Pesticide Tolerance published in the
Federal Register on February 20, 2001 (66 FR 10817) (FRL-6761-1).>

<6. Animal metabolism.	  The metabolism of flutolanil has been
extensively studied in various species of mammals. Studies in rats,
ruminants and poultry suggest that flutolanil is not well absorbed
following oral administration.  Once absorbed, however, it is rapidly
metabolized, primarily to desisopropylflutolanil and its conjugates, and
rapidly excreted via urine and feces.

7. Metabolite toxicology. [N/A-Remove]

>

<8. Endocrine disruption. No special studies have been conducted to
investigate the potential of flutolanil to induce estrogenic or other
endocrine effects. No evidence of such effects has been observed in the
subchronic, chronic or reproductive studies previously discussed.  Thus,
the potential for flutolanil to cause endocrine effects is considered to
be not relevant.

9.Toxicity  endpoint selection.   Flutolanil is of low acute toxicity
via all

routes of administration and did not induce significant maternal or
developmental toxicity in either rats or rabbits, even at the limit dose
of 1000 mg/kg/day.  Furthermore, no evidence of toxicity was noted
following repeated dosing at 1000 mg/kg/day in a 21-day dermal toxicity
study.  Thus acute dietary, occupational and residential risk
assessments are not considered necessary.  The Agency has concluded that
the cPAD (chronic population adjusted dose) for flutolanil should be
0.87 mg/kg/day, based on the NOAEL of 87 mg/kg/day from the rat 2-year
chronic/oncogenicity study and a 100-fold uncertainty factor.  The
Agency has also determined that the cancer classification for flutolanil
should be “Group E – Evidence of Non-Carcinogenicity for Humans.”

	>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. Chronic dietary risk analyses were conducted to
estimate the potential flutolanil residues in/on the following crops:
rice, peanuts, potato, wheat, and soybeans.    Meat, milk, poultry, and
egg residues were included.  Analyses were performed using the Lifeline
TM Version 3.0 which incorporates data as reported by respondents in the
USDA 1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII) and accumulated exposure to the chemical for each
commodity.  Chronic exposure estimates to food were based on tolerance
levels and assumed 100% crop treatment, yielding the worst case chronic
dietary exposure estimates.>

<	i. Food.  An acute dietary assessment is not required as there is no
acute toxicity associated with flutolanil exposure.  The chronic dietary
exposure estimated food exposure to be 0.0027 mg/kg/day for the U.S.
population, based on the Lifeline TM Version 3.0.  The number of
individuals simulated was 3000.  The highest exposure group was
children, age 1-2, with exposures of 0.0069 mg/kg/day. These are
considered conservative values as all exposure was based on tolerance
levels and assumed all crops were treated with flutolanil.

>

<	ii. Drinking water. The potential for flutolanil to leach into
groundwater has been assessed in two terrestrial field dissipation
studies, a long-term terrestrial field dissipation study, and an aquatic
field dissipation study.  Under field conditions, the half-life of
flutolanil varied from 101 to 123 days in the long-term study, which was
consistent with the other field studies, and was approximately 180 days
in the aquatic environment.  Flutolanil strongly adsorbs to soil
following application and did not exhibit mobility under either
terrestrial or aquatic conditions.  Based on these observations, the
Agency concluded that the most important means of dissipation in surface
water and also in ground water will most likely be dilution.  Due to the
lack sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a dietary risk
assessment for flutolanil in drinking water, models that best accounted
for the application of flutolanil to rice paddies were used to simulate
exposure to flutolanil in drinking water.  Based on the First
Approximation Rice Model and Screening Concentrations in Ground Water
(SCI-GROW) model, the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of
flutolanil for acute exposures are 3.8 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 0.34 ppb for ground water.  The EECs for chronic
exposures are 3.8 ppb for surface water and 0.34 ppb for ground water.
>

<	2. 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 pests).  Flutolanil is
currently registered for use on the following residential non-dietary
sites:  Turf grass.  The risk assessment was conducted using the
following residential exposure assumptions:  There are non-occupational
uses associated with flutolanil.  Non-occupational handlers may mix,
load and apply flutolanil products on turf grass.  These exposures were
assessed for inhalation risk.  Post-application inhalation exposure
following turfgrass treatment is considered negligible and was not
assessed.  Because certain flutolanil products are registered for use on
residential lawns, postapplication exposure to infants may result in
their hand-to-mouth activities on treated turf.  The MOE’s for these
scenarios ranged from 6.7 x 102 to 1.4 x 103.  These MOEs are greater
than the LOC of 100 and lie above the Agency’s level of concern.

>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

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.'' Unlike other pesticides for which EPA
has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of
toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to
flutolanil and any other substances and flutolanil does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that
flutolanil has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's OPP
concerning common mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating
effects from substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's
website at

    HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/"    ADVANCE \d
4 http://www.epa.gov/ pesticides/cumulative/

Flutolanil has demonstrated only minimal toxicity in animal studies.
The mechanism of this toxicity is not known.  Furthermore, there are no
available data to indicate that flutolanil has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances.  Thus, only the potential risks from
flutolanil are being considered in this document.

<E. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. The (cPAD) was determined to be 0.87 mg/kg/day
based on an oral NOAEL of 87 mg/kg/day in the rat chronic oncogenicity
study and an uncertainty factor of 100X for inter- and intra-species
variations and an FQPA children’s safety factor of 1X.  Based on the
existing tolerances in rice, peanuts and secondary commodities plus the
proposed tolerances in soybean, and wheat commodities, the chronic food
exposure is estimated to be 0.0027 mg/kg/day for the U.S. population in
general.  There is generally no concern for exposures below 100% of the
cPAD since the cPAD represents the exposure level at or below which
daily exposure over a lifetime will not pose any appreciable risks to
human health.  Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result to the U.S. population in general from aggregate exposure to
flutolanil.

 >

<	2. Infants and children. Data from reproductive and developmental
toxicity studies are generally used to assess the potential for
increased sensitivity of infants and children.  No evidence of
developmental toxicity was evident.  Therefore, there is no reason to
believe there is an increased sensitivity in infants and children. The
FQPA safety factor was determined to be 1x. >

<F. International Tolerances>

		Canada, Codex, and Mexico do not have maximum residue limits (MRLs)
for residues of flutolanil or desisopropylflutolanil residues on the
proposed crops.  Therefore, harmonization is not an issue.

<>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 18 (Friday, January 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7611-7612]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0926]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Notice of
Proposed Outdoor Laser Operation(s)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves the gathering of information
necessary for the FAA to ensure proposed outdoor laser operations will
not interfere with air traffic operations. The information to be
collected will be used to and/or is necessary because the FAA must
evaluate proposed outdoor laser operations requiring a Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) variance from a laser light show, display, or
device.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by March 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN:
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations, AJV-P21.
    By fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Konie by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0662.
    Title: Notice of Proposed Outdoor Laser Operation(s).
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 7140-1.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: No laser light show, projection system, or device may
vary from compliance with 21 CFR 1040.11(c) in design or use without
the approval of an application for variance in accordance with 21 CFR
1010.4 using FDA Form 3147. In order to obtain a variance from 21 CFR
1040.11(c) for a laser light show, display, or device (as described on
FDA Form 3147); advance written notification must be made as early as
possible to appropriate federal, state, and local authorities providing
show itinerary with dates and locations clearly and completely
identified, and a basic description of the proposed effects including a
statement of the maximum power output intended. Such notifications must
be made, but not necessarily be limited, to the FAA for any projections
into open airspace at any time (i.e., including set up, alignment,
rehearsals, performances, etc.). If the FAA objects to any laser
effects, the objections will be resolved and any conditions requested
by FAA will be adhered to. If these conditions cannot be met, the
objectionable effects will be deleted from the show.
    FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 70-1A, Outdoor Laser Operations,
provides information for those proponents planning to conduct outdoor
laser operations that may affect aircraft operations in the United
States (U.S.) National Airspace System (NAS). In addition, FAA AC 70-1A
explains the necessity to notify the FAA, how to notify the FAA of the
planned laser operation, and any action the FAA will take to respond to
such notifications. Furthermore, AC 70-1A includes instructions for
completing the requisite FAA Form 7140-1, Notice of Proposed Outdoor
Laser Operation(s).
    Respondents: Approximately 603 laser operations.
    Frequency: One time per laser operation.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately four hours per
form.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: Approximately 2,412 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 22, 2021.
Natasha A. Durkins,
Director, Policy, AJV-P, Air Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2021-01932 Filed 1-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76545-76546]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0799]
RIN 1625-AA87

Safety and Security Zones; New York Marine Inspection and Captain
of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is requesting public comments from any and all
waterway users regarding the permanent security zone that encompasses
all waters within 150 yards of the bridge connecting Liberty State Park
and Ellis Island. The Coast Guard is considering restoring navigational
access to the waterway between Ellis Island and Liberty State Park by
modifying the security zone around the Ellis Island Bridge. The purpose
removal of the security zone would be to increase navigational safety
in New York Harbor by allowing vessels to transit under the Ellis
Island Bridge, rather than being required to transit the Anchorage
Channel.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before January 3, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0799 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST1 Kristina Pundt, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MARSEC Maritime Security
NYCWTA New York City Water Trail Association

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this possible
rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number
for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to
which each comment applies, indicate the specific question number to
which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this ANPRM as being available in the docket,
and all

public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted and if
we publish rulemaking documents related to this ANPRM.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    On November 27, 2002, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, ``Safety and Security Zones; New
York Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zone'' in the Federal
Register (67 FR 70892). The NPRM proposed to establish a permanent
safety and security zone encompassing all waters within 150 yards of
Liberty Island, Ellis Island, and the bridge between Liberty State Park
and Ellis Island. We received no comments on the proposed rule. No
public hearing was requested and none was held. The current 150-yard
permanent security zone around the Ellis Island Bridge became effective
on January 1, 2003 as enacted by a final rule entitled, ``Safety and
Security Zones; New York Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port
Zone'' published in the Federal Register (68 FR 2886, January 22,
2003). On May 6, 2008 the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, ``Safety and Security Zones; New York
Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port'' in the Federal
Register (73 FR 24889). The NPRM proposed to modify several aspects of
the permanent safety and security zone regulations within the New York
Captain of the Port Zone. We received 15 comments regarding the
proposed rule. A public meeting was requested to discuss the proposed
expansion of the Liberty and Ellis Island security zones to include all
waters within 400 yards of these two islands instead of the existing
security zone within a 150 yard radius of Liberty and Ellis Islands.
Based on the comments received, the Coast Guard withdrew the proposed
change to the Liberty and Ellis Island security zones and therefore a
public meeting was no longer needed.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authority for this ANPRM is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50
U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    On April 18, 2016, the Coast Guard received a request from the New
York City Water Trail Association (NYCWTA) to consider restoring
navigational access to the waterway between Ellis Island and Liberty
State Park by removing the security zone around the Ellis Island
Bridge. The purpose of this ANPRM is to solicit comments on potential
proposed rulemakings to modify the existing security zone around the
Ellis Island Bridge.

D. Discussion of Possible Proposed Rule

    The existing security zone surrounding the Ellis Island Bridge
prohibits all vessels from transiting underneath the Ellis Island
Bridge and the protected waters between Ellis Island and Liberty State
Park. All vessels must transit in the Anchorage Channel to the east of
Ellis Island, where larger commercial vessel traffic is prevalent.
Small passenger vessels that transit to Ellis Island also use this
channel. Due to congestion of the waterway as a result of this traffic,
the Coast Guard is considering a modification of the existing Ellis
Island Bridge security zone. Modifying or eliminating this zone would
provide smaller vessels the opportunity to transit underneath the
bridge instead of within the Anchorage Channel, therefore, decreasing
channel congestion and increasing navigational safety in the harbor.
The existing 25 yard security zone surrounding any bridge pier or
abutment would still apply to this bridge as per 33 CFR 165.169(a)(5).

E. Information Requested

    Public participation is requested to assist in determining the best
way forward with respect to modifying the existing security zone
surrounding the Ellis Island Bridge. To aid us in developing a possible
proposed rule, we seek any comments, whether positive or negative,
including but not limited to, the impacts that the existing security
zone surrounding the Ellis Island Bridge has on navigational safety.
    We are also seeking comments on the current vessel traffic and the
types of vessels that transit in this area. To aid us in developing a
proposed rule, we seek your responses to the following questions.
    1. Should the existing security zone surrounding the bridge only be
enforced between sunset and sunrise or during daylight hours as well?
Why?
    2. Should there be any security zone or vessel operating
restrictions enforced surrounding the Ellis Island Bridge?
    3. Should the Ellis Island Bridge only have a designated 25-yard
security zone surrounding its piers as currently applies to all other
bridges south of the Troy Lock on the Hudson River (33 CFR
165.169(a)(5))?
    4. What types and sizes of vessels should be allowed to transit
under the Ellis Island bridge?
    5. Are there tide, weather, or other variables that preclude
vessels from transiting under the bridge?
    6. What are the pros of modifying the security zone?
    7. What are the cons of modifying the security zone?
    8. What are the risks to the bridge of resuming vessel traffic
underneath?
    9. What are the risks to commercial and recreational vessel traffic
by requiring small recreational motor, and human powered, vessels to
continue transiting through the Anchorage Channel near Ellis Island?
    10. Should the U.S. Park Service screen vessels that transit
underneath the bridge?
    11. Are there other bridges in the COTP Area that should not be
available for recreational vessels to transit underneath?
    12. Should alternative security measures be established for access
control to the Ellis Island Bridge, as per 33 CFR 105.255?
    13. Should alternative security measures be established for
restricted areas, such as the Ellis Island Bridge, as per 33 CFR
105.260?
    14. Should additional security measures be established for
monitoring the Ellis Island Bridge as per 33 CFR 105.275?
    15. Should there be different levels of vessel transit restrictions
underneath the bridge based on the current MARSEC Level? MARSEC Level
means the level set to reflect the prevailing threat environment to the
marine elements of the national transportation system, including ports,
vessels, facilities, and critical assets and infrastructure located on
or adjacent to waters subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. (33 CFR
101.105 and 33 CFR 105.230).
    16. What restrictions would you recommend be established for vessel
transits underneath the bridge during MARSEC Level 1, 2, or 3?
    Please submit comments or concerns you may have in accordance with
the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' section above.

    Dated: October 17, 2016.
M.H. Day,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2016-26599 Filed 11-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:                  7/29/15

FROM:                 Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO:                       Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

SUBJECT:             Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with Jamaica National Environment and Planning Agency

SUMMARY:         REGION 4 PROVIDED INFORMATION ON THE CLEAN POWER PLAN TO the Jamaica National Environment and Planning Agency in Atlanta, GA, on December 1, 2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.   ATTENDEES:

EPA Ken Mitchell/EPA R4 Al Korgi/EPA R4

External Stakeholders Jody Ann Marston, Jamaica National Environment and Planning Agency Steven Panton, Jamaica National Environment and Planning Agency

ATTACHMENT


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56023-56025]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22273]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0717; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-026-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pilatus Aircraft, Ltd. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/
350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-
H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes that
would supersede AD 2013-11-08. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated 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 a need to incorporate new revisions into the aircraft
maintenance manual or in the limitations document of the FAA-approved
maintenance program. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 3,
2014.

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 proposed AD, contact
PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Liaison Manager, CH-6371 STANS,
Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 41 619 65 80; fax: +41 (0) 41 619 65
76; Internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0717; 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: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2014-0717;
Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-026-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://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 May 22, 2013, we issued AD 2013-11-08, Amendment 39-17468 (78 FR
37701; June 24, 2013). That AD required actions intended to address an
unsafe condition on Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-6-H1, PC-6-
H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-6/A-H2,
PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2, and PC-6/C1-
H2 airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country.
    Since we issued AD 2013-11-08, Amendment 39-17468 (78 FR 37701;
June 24, 2013), Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. has issued revisions to the
Limitations section of the airplane maintenance manual (AFM) to
incorporate new life limits for the fire extinguisher.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2014-0181, dated July 31, 2014 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    The maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations
applicable to the Structure and Components of PC-6 aeroplanes are
specified in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) under Chapter 4
or in the Airworthiness Limitations Document (ALS), depending on
aeroplane model.
    The instructions contained in the ALS document have been
identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness and
failure to comply with these instructions and limitations could
potentially lead to an unsafe condition.
    Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. (Pilatus) recently issued PC-6 AMM,
Chapter 04-00-00, Document Number 01975 issue 19 for PC-6 B2-H2 and
PC-6 B2-H4 aeroplanes and PC-6 ALS, Document Number 02334 issue 4
for all other PC-6 aeroplane models to incorporate new life limits
for the Fire Extinguisher.
    For the reason described above, this AD retains the requirements
of EASA AD 2012-0268, which is superseded, and requires
implementation of the new maintenance requirements and/or
airworthiness limitations.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0717.

Relevant Service Information

    Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. has issued Airworthiness Limitations,
document No. 02334, dated May 31, 2014; and Airworthiness Limitations,
document 04-00-00, dated May 31, 2014. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 50 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $34,000, or $680 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $1,000, for a cost of
$1,085 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.
    The only costs that would be imposed by this proposed AD over that
already required by AD 2013-11-08 is 1 work-hour to incorporate the new
airworthiness limitations section sections into the maintenance
program, $1,085 for replacement of the fire extinguisher if needed, and
the addition of 35 airplanes from 15 airplanes to 50 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 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 this 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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, 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

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. Amend Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-17468 (78 FR 37701; June
24, 2013), and adding the following new AD:

    Pilatus Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2014-0717; Directorate
Identifier 2014-CE-026-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 3, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2013-11-08, Amendment 39-17468 (78 FR
37701; June 24, 2013).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Pilatus Aircraft Ltd. Models PC-6, PC-6-H1,
PC-6-H2, PC-6/350, PC-6/350-H1, PC-6/350-H2, PC-6/A, PC-6/A-H1, PC-
6/A-H2, PC-6/B-H2, PC-6/B1-H2, PC-6/B2-H2, PC-6/B2-H4, PC-6/C-H2,
and PC-6/C1-H2 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSN),
including MSN 2001 through 2092 (see Note 1 of paragraph c),
certificated in any category.
    Note 1 of paragraph (c): For MSN 2001-2092, these airplanes are
also identified as Fairchild Republic Company PC-6 airplanes,
Fairchild Industries PC-6 airplanes, Fairchild Heli Porter PC-6
airplanes, or Fairchild-Hiller Corporation PC-6 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 5: Time Limits.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated 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 a need to
incorporate new revisions into the aircraft maintenance manual (AMM)
or in the Limitations document of the FAA-approved maintenance
program. The limitations were revised to incorporate new life limits
for the fire extinguisher. These actions are required to ensure the
continued operational safety of the affected airplanes.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    (1) Actions retained from AD 2013-11-08, Amendment 39-17468 (78
FR 37701; June 24, 2013) for all Models PC-6 airplanes: If the flap
actuator has accumulated 3,500 hours time-in-service (TIS) or more
since new or last overhauled or 7 years or more since new or last
overhauled, whichever occurs first, replacement of the flap actuator
(except part numbers 9<IP_ADDRESS> and 9<IP_ADDRESS>) is required
within 350 hours TIS after July 29, 2013, 2013 (the effective date
retained from AD 2013-11-08) or 6 months after July 29, 2013, 2013
(the effective date retained from AD 2013-11-08), whichever occurs
first. Flap actuators with less than 3,500 hours TIS or 7 years
since new or last overhauled are covered by the airworthiness
limitations document (ALS) requirement.
    (2) Actions new to this AD for all affected Models PC-6/B2-H2
and PC-6/B2-H4 airplanes: Before further flight after the effective
date of this AD incorporate the maintenance requirements as
specified in Chapter 04-00-00 of the AMM document number 01975,
issue 19, dated May 31, 2014, of the Pilatus PC-6 Maintenance
Manual; into your FAA-accepted maintenance program (maintenance
manual).
    (3) Actions new to this AD for all affected Models PC-6 other
than the Models PC-6/B2-H2 and PC-6/B2-H4 airplanes: Before further
flight after the effective date of this AD incorporate the
maintenance requirements as

specified in ALS document number 02334, issue 4, dated May 31, 2014,
into your FAA-accepted maintenance program (maintenance manual).
    (4) Actions new to this AD for all airplanes:
    (i) For airplanes with Halon Fire Extinguishers that have not
yet reached the 10 year life limit after the effective date of this
AD, when the Halon Fire Extinguisher reaches its life limit of 10
years, before further flight, replace with an airworthy Halon Fire
Extinguisher following Chapter 04-00-00 of the AMM, document number
01975, issue 19, dated May 31, 2014, of the Pilatus PC-6 Maintenance
Manual; or ALS document number 02334, issue 4, dated May 31, 2014;
as applicable.
    (ii) For airplanes with Halon Fire Extinguishers that have
reached the 10 year life limit on or before the effective date of
this AD, within the next 30 days after the effective date of this AD
or within the next 10 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, replace with an airworthy Halon Fire
Extinguisher following Chapter 04-00-00 of the AMM, document number
01975, issue 19, dated May 31, 2014, of the Pilatus PC-6 Maintenance
Manual; or ALS document number 02334, issue 4, dated May 31, 2014;
as applicable.
    (iii) Repetitively, after replacing the airplanes Halon Fire
Extinguisher as required in paragraphs (f)(4)(i) or (f)(4)(ii),
within 10 years after each last replacement, replace with an
airworthy Halon Fire Extinguisher.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.: 2014-
0181, dated July 31, 2014, for related information. You may examine
the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2041-0717. For service information
related to this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Liaison
Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 41 619 65
80; fax: +41 (0) 41 619 65 76; Internet: http://www.pilatus-
aircraft.com; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review
this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 12, 2014.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-22273 Filed 9-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


John Silvasi/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 08/ 12/ 2005 03: 12 PM T o Art Fraas, Amy Flynn c c Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Robert Meyers/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EP A, Tom Helms, Denise Gerth, Jan Tierney/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EP A, Sara Schneeberg, Kendra Sagoff/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EP A, Kevin Mclean, Richard Ossias, Jim Ketcham Colwill, Dave Sanders, Suzanne Rudzinski/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Rudolph Kapichak/ AA/ USEPA/ US@ E PA S u b j e c t * Redline/ strikeout version  phase 2 8 hr O3 NAAQS implementation rule Hi, Art & Amy,

Attached is a redline/ strikeout version of the 8 hr rule with the RACT section and RFP section changes we sent recently. The comparison is to the July 8 version, the last complete version we sent to you. ( Let me know if you need comparison to another version.)

In addition to the changes we discussed recently, the following sections underwent some substantive changes:

 The CMAQ funding section ( I understand that our Office of Transporation and Air Quality has already forwarded the language to their DOT contacts, with whom they have worked out language to accommodate the recently signed SAFETEA LU).  The emissions inventory section has been revised to reflect our attorney's concerns about the EI needing to be submitted as a SIP revision for both subpart 1 and subpart 2 areas.  In the RFP section, the large Table 1 ( depicting emission reduction deadlines for certain kinds of areas) was dropped on advice of our attorney's who felt it may have been confusing in a FR notice. We will likely place it on our web site for informational purposes.

Let me know if we need to discuss.

I'm also attaching a table of contents to this RLSO version.

John J. Silvasi Environmental Engineer Ozone Policy and Strategies Group ( C539 02) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 919 541 5666 ( v); 919 541 0824 ( fax) silvasi. john@ epa. gov


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 34886]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4705-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

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

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas (FEMA-4705-DR), dated April 21, 2023, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued May 8, 2023.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas 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
April 21, 2023.

    Anderson, Falls, Gillespie, Hopkins, Kerr, Kimble, Limestone,
and Red River Counties for Public 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.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-11539 Filed 5-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 150 (Wednesday, August 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46593-46594]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19251]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4229-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

Colorado; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Colorado (FEMA-4229-DR), dated July 16, 2015,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective date: July 16, 2015.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated July 16, 2015, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Colorado resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, flooding,
landslides, and mudslides during the period of May 4 to June 16,
2015, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major
disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Colorado.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Dolph A. Diemont, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Colorado have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Baca, Elbert, El Paso, Fremont, Logan, Morgan, Pueblo, Saguache,
Sedgwick,

Washington, and Yuma Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Colorado are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-19251 Filed 8-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


                                                      OMB Control No. 2060-0586

 OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP

 The ENERGY STAR(R) partners in  	(city)  agree to participate in the 2009 Outreach Partnership to promote ENERGY STAR qualified homes.

 9	We will contribute a total of $  	 for our Outreach Partnership campaign.

 9	The number of builders participating in our campaign is  	 (minimum of 3).

 9	We have reviewed and understand the guidelines for participating in the 2009 Outreach       Partnership.

      9	We will submit a draft media plan to EPA by April 30 (or at least 3 weeks prior to the start of our campaign), and our outreach campaign will begin no later than August 1, 2009.

 9	Our target campaign start date is  	_.

      9	We understand that EPA will conduct a paid online search campaign to complement our media placements. To support that effort, we will develop and maintain a local web site and/or web pages dedicated to ENERGY STAR qualified homes (using the EPA-provided template or our       own). If we develop or use our own web site, we will actively respond to EPA recommendations for any needed improvements to support the online search campaign.

      9	We agree to provide EPA with web site tracking information to allow an evaluation of the effectiveness of our campaign.

      9	We understand that EPA may add logos to our ads (or local web site) from sponsors helping to extend the duration of the campaign.

 We designate the following individuals/organizations:

 9	Primary Point of Contact:

 Name  	Company

 Phone  	 Fax  	E-mail

 9	Coordinator with local media outlets on rates and invoicing:

 Name  	Company

 Phone  	 Fax  	E-mail

                   EPA Form 5900-06	The government estimates the average time needed to fill out this form is 1.35 hours and welcomes suggestions for reducing this effort. Send comments (referencing OMB Control Number) to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 150 (Monday, August 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47419-47420]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18807]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0022]

Requirements for the OSHA Training Institute Education Centers
Program and the OSHA Outreach Training Program; Requesting the Office
of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S.
Department of Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits comments concerning its proposal to obtain OMB
approval of the information collection requirements contained in the
OSHA Training Institute Education Centers Program and the OSHA Outreach
Training Program.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
October 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than ten (10) pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202) 693-1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2009-0022, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the Information Collection Request (ICR) (OSHA-2009-
0022). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may contact Jim Barnes,
Director, Office of Training and Educational Programs, or Kimberly
Mason, OSHA Training Institute Education Centers Program at the address
below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Barnes, Director, Office of
Training and Educational Programs, or Kimberly Mason, OSHA Training
Institute Education Centers Program, Directorate of Training and
Education, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 2020 S Arlington Heights
Rd., Arlington Heights, IL. 60005-4102; Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
    This program ensures that information is in the desired format,
reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments
are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information
collection burden is accurate. Consistent with the

authority of Section 21 of the OSH Act, the Agency created two
educational programs, the OSHA Training Institute (OTI) Education
Centers Program and the OSHA Outreach Training Program (Outreach).
    To be a participant in the OTI Education Centers Programs or the
Outreach Training Program, an individual/organization must provide the
Agency with certain information. The requested information is necessary
to evaluate the applicant organization and to implement, oversee, and
monitor the OTI Education Centers and Outreach Training Programs,
courses and trainers. The 11 collection of information requirements are
listed below.

    A. Application to become an OSHA Training Institute Education
Center (OTI Education Center);
    B. OTI Education Centers Monthly Summary Report for the OTI
Education Centers and the Outreach Training Program Monthly Summary
Report;
    C. Statement of Compliance With Outreach Training Program
Requirements;
    D. Outreach Training Program Report Forms (includes
Construction, General Industry, Maritime, and Disaster Site);
    E. Online Outreach Training Program Report;
    F. Active Trainer List;
    G. OSHA Training Institute Student Survey (OSHA Form 49 11-05
Edition) (OMB 1225-0059) (Attachment I, OSHA Form 49 11-05 Edition).
    H. Attendance Documentation for OTI Education Centers;
    I. Outreach Online Training Certification Statement
    J. Instructor and Staff Resumes (this include anyone who may be
assigned to conduct OSHA classes, contractor, subcontractor,
employee, adjunct professor, etc.;
    K. Course Material upon Request by OSHA from OTI Education
Centers;

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting a 4,059 hour burden hour adjustment increase as
a result of increasing the number of courses offered, the number of
students attending these two educational programs; and, in turn, the
information OSHA needs to adequately monitor the programs. OSHA has
identified a set of collections of information necessary for operating
the Agency's two education programs, the OSHA Training Institute (OTI)
Education Centers Program and OSHA Outreach Training Program. The OTI
Education Centers are non-profit organizations that provide training at
their location. The Outreach Training Program trains individuals who
become authorized to train other individuals. The trainers determine
when and where training sessions will be held.
    The Agency will summarize comments submitted in response to this
notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a previously approved collection.
    Title: OSHA Training Institute (OTI) Education Centers Program, and
OSHA Outreach Training Program Data Collection
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0262.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; not-for-profit
institutions; Federal government; State, local and tribal governments.
    Number of Respondents: 385.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Total Responses: 48,329.
    Average Time per Response: Ranges from 5 minutes for OTI Education
Centers to provide a list of outreach trainers to OSHA to 60 hours for
a not-for-profit institution to prepare and submit an application to
become an OTI Education Center.
    Estimated Total: Burden hours: 14,292.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2009-0022). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 31, 2013.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2013-18807 Filed 8-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 28262]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11920]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1025-086]

Safe Harbor Water Power Corp.; Notice of Technical Conference for
Safe Harbor Project

    a. Date and Time of Meeting: Monday, June 8, 2015, beginning at
10:00 a.m. (EDT) and concluding at 1:00 p.m. (EDT).
    b. Place: Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation, 1 Powerhouse Road,
Conestoga, PA 17516-9651.
    c. FERC Contact: Rebecca Martin at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    d. Purpose of Meeting: To discuss the Commission's March 16, 2015
Order approving an increase in the normal maximum water surface
elevation of Lake Clarke to 227.6 feet mean sea level (msl) from April
15 to October 15. The Order also approved a temporary increase of Lake
Clarke, up to elevation 228.0 feet msl, from April 15 to October 15, if
the results of the Safe Harbor annual spring mudflat surveys
demonstrate that the minimum area of shorebird habitat can be
maintained.
    e. A summary of the meeting will be prepared for the project
record.
    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other
interested parties are invited to participate. Please call Rebecca
Martin at<PHONE_NUMBER> or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by
May 26, 2015, to register your attendance for the meeting.
    g. FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.

    Dated: May 12, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11920 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P