[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 25384]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10214]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1051; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-39]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Immokalee, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E Airspace at Immokalee, FL, to
accommodate the Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Big Cypress Airfield. This
action enhances the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 27, 2013. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P. O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 30, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at
Immokalee, FL (78 FR 6262) Docket No. FAA-2012-1051. Interested parties
were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of the airport at Immokalee,
FL, providing the controlled airspace required to accommodate the new
RNAV (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed for Big
Cypress Airfield. This action is necessary for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Big Cypress Airfield,
Immokalee, FL.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 8, 2012, effective September 15, 2012, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Immokalee, FL [New]

Big Cypress Airfield, FL
    (Lat. 26[deg]19'34'' N., long. 80[deg]59'17'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of Big Cypress Airfield.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 22, 2013.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-10214 Filed 4-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 24589-24590]
[DOCID:fr05my08-469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-685-000]

TransCanada Maine Wind Development Inc.; Notice of Issuance of
Order

April 25, 2008.
    TransCanada Maine Wind Development Inc. (TCMWD) filed an
application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying
tariff. The proposed market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of
energy and capacity. TCMWD also requested waivers of various Commission
regulations. In particular, TCMWD requested that the Commission grant
blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of
securities and assumptions of liability by TCMWD.
    On April 16, 2008, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development-West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under Part 34 (Director's Order). The Director's
Order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice
in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of
protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard concerning the
blanket approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of
liability by TCMWD, should file a protest 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, 385.214 (2004). The Commission
encourages the electronic submission of protests using the FERC Online
link at http://www.ferc.gov.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests is May
16, 2008.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition to such blanket
approvals by the deadline above, TCMWD is authorized to issue
securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor,
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful
object within the corporate purposes of TCMWD, compatible with the
public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such
purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of TCMWD's issuance of securities or assumptions of
liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the

``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-9777 Filed 5-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 May 23, 2005 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: BEAD Deliverables for the EBDC RED DP Barcode: D305829 FROM: Richard E. Michell, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist Bill Phillips, MSc., Agronomist Biological Analysis Branch David Donaldson, Economist Economic Analysis Branch THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief Biological Analysis Branch David Widawsky, Chief Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

TO: Tawanda Spears, Maneb & Metiram CRM Christina Scheltema, Mancozeb CRM Reregistration Branch 3 Special Review & Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

Product Review Panel Completed: April 20, 2005 Introduction The Agency prepared the deliverables in this document during Phases 2 and 3 of the reregistration process for the ethelenebisdithiocarbamate ( EBDC) fungicides ( mancozeb, maneb, metiram) to obtain additional information about specific use patterns of concern and to potentially refine risks identified in the risk assessments.

Summary of Requests, Conclusions and Deliverables I] Sod Farm Use: SRRD requested that BEAD explore several different issues associated with EBDC use on sod farm turf. The information was to be used to estimate typical human exposure levels in newly established residential sod lawns. The information requested included: 1) common post application practices associated with the harvest, 2) shipment, installation, and establishment of sod in a residential setting, 3) maximum feasible preharvest interval ( PHI), typical rates and application practices on sod farms.

A summary of BEAD's Conclusions follows: 1. Common post application practices in residential destined sod: Given the reentry interval ( REI) of one day plus a one to three day planting window, the minimum time that would elapse between treatment and installation of sod in a residential setting would be within the range of two to four days. However, the frequent and long duration of watering of newly installed sod and the need to restrict foot traffic for several weeks after planting should also serve to deter people from using newly installed sod. Additionally, when harvested sod is stacked or rolled for shipment, the moist roots and soil are in contact with the sod foliage and may impact the level of EBDC residue exposure after the sod is installed. Note: Comments submitted by the EBDC Task Force also support these findings. 2. Maximum PHI: Through information obtained from Florida ( FL), the maximum PHI acceptable to sod growers would be two days. 3. Typical rates, number of applications and use practices on sod farms: While BEAD was unable to obtain nationwide data on typical application rates for EBDC fungicides used on sod farms, feedback from FL indicate that a maximum use rate of about 15 lbs. ai/ A is commonly used when severe pest pressure conditions exist, and lower rates are used when lower disease pressure exists. Since the nationwide typical application rate used on golf courses ranged from 9 to 14 lbs. ai/ A and averaged about 10.5 lbs. ai/ A ( see Appendix B), BEAD suggests that these rates may be somewhat representative of the rates used on sod farms. FL sod farm information also indicated that a maximum of 4 to 5 applications may be applied during the 10 to 14 month crop cycle, however a nationwide survey indicates that on average about 2 fungicide applications are applied per year. See Appendix A for BEAD's full assessment and supporting information. Note that Appendix A differs from the original version submitted in that it now addresses the dosage rate issue.

II] Recreational Turf Use of EBDC Fungicides: Due to human post application exposure risk concerns, BEAD was asked to characterize the use of EBDC fungicides on golf courses, and other recreational turf, including the average application rates, number of applications per year, and percentage of courses treated in support of the assessment of occupational exposure to mancozeb. Since the data indicate that little if any maneb is used our response only includes information on the predominant EBDC fungicide mancozeb. The available data indicate that about 19 percent of the US golf courses used mancozeb on at least some portion of their turf acreage. The typical application rate used on golf courses ranged from 9 to 14 lbs. ai/ A and averaged about 10.5 lbs. ai/ A. The average number of fungicide applications is estimated to range from about 5 to 8 times per year. Although no specific information was available, the use of pesticides in general on sports turf is reportedly limited to professional and some college fields and is estimated to involve about 1 percent of the sports turf acreage. A summary of the relevant information available is provided in Appendix B. III] Home Garden Use: Due to human risk concerns associated with hand harvesting of sweet corn, BEAD was asked to determine the essentiality of foliar treatments to sweet corn in home gardens. BEAD verbally indicated that this was a relatively unimportant use for homeowners due to the general inability of homeowners to predict or recognize the labeled diseases ( Puccinia rust, Helminthosporium leaf spot) plus the fact that these diseases seldom cause serious damage in home gardens. Note: USDA also provided a docket comment which stated that home sweet corn production is not a disease management intensive scenario.

IV] Metiram Apple Use: Due to mixer/ loader worker exposure risk concerns, determine the incidence of metiram aerial applications; and the timing of ground and aerial applications relative to summer pruning. Aerial application use was investigated in the seven major states using metiram on apples. NY was the only State reportedly using aerial applications. Such use was estimated to occur on ~ 3 to 5 percent of the metiram treated acreage in New York. Aerial applications typically are used in early spring when the ground is too wet for ground applications and when trees need to be treated quickly before disease infections occur. Eighty three percent of NY orchards are < 50 acres and 97 percent are less than 250 acres.

Growers have two use pattern choices on apples: 1) apply up to 4.8 lbs. ai/ acre/ application between green tip and petal fall, or use up to 2.4 lbs. ai/ acre/ application between green tip and 77 days before harvest. The available data indicates that only about one third of users choose the 77 day preharvest interval ( PHI) option. BEAD found that in the major metiram usage states, when the last application occurs at petal fall there is a 5 to 7 week gap between the last application and the beginning of summer pruning. For those growers that choose to use the alternate 77 day PHI application schedule, the gap between the last application and summer pruning narrows to about 1 to 3 weeks.

See Appendix C for BEAD =

s official response documents on these two issues. Note: Appendix C differs from the original version submitted by the inclusion of a statement which addresses the 77 day PHI use pattern. Winter pruning was not addressed since it occurs in the dormant season prior to the initial green tip metiram applications.

V] Leatherleaf Fern Use: Due to worker exposure concerns, determine the number of metiram applications per year. Based on the Florida response, metiram use is minimal on Leatherleaf Fern. Therefore, it is BEAD's conclusion that a seasonal maximum of 20 applications per calendar year would be more than sufficient for Leatherleaf Fern growers. See Appendix D for BEAD =

s response document.

VI] Wettable Powder ( WP) Formulations: Due to worker exposure concerns, determine the need for wettable powder formulations. An analysis conducted by BEAD found that there is no niche market or location within the country where the WP formulations are used. However, the data did show that of all EBDC formulations, the WP formulations constitute ~ 10% of the market. Overall, BEAD was unable to determine if there is a specific need for the WP formulation. Comments received by the EBDC Task force stated that the dry flowable or flowable formulation allows for greater ease of handling than wettable powders. See Appendix E. VII] Cut Flower Use: Due to worker exposure concerns, determine the maximum number of EBDC applications likely to be applied per year. After several weeks of searching for information, BEAD determined that none of the existing studies addressed this issue and we would have to contact too many people to encompass the numerous crops and states involved. Based on our preliminary searching it appeared that most users did not apply any one fungicide all year long. In addition, a public comment submitted by Mary Hausbeck of the University of Michigan, stated that field grown cut flowers in this state received five to seven applications of mancozeb annually. After discussing other options with HED, we advised them that an annual use limitation of 20 applications should be proposed as a risk mitigation measure.

VIII] Mancozeb Pear 24( c) use: Although BEAD was not officially requested to conduct an assessment of this use, it was mentioned that this use was a potential concern to HED because it involved a very high application rate. Accordingly, we conducted a cursory inquiry into a docket comment from the Northwest Horticultural Council claiming that a state local need use on pears for control of pear psyllid is important. Our findings were that two State Local Need registrations exist for use in Washington State. 2002 NASS data indicate that the 6.4 lbs. ai/ acre rate is applied an average of 1.1 times/ year to 16 percent of the acreage grown in Washington. The Council recommended a crop specialist that could be contacted for obtaining economic impact information. See Appendix F for BEAD =

s report on this inquiry.

IX] Provide Average Application Rates and Refine EBDC Usage Data: Average EBDC application rates were provided to assist in the dietary and occupational risk assessments. Additionally, more refined pesticide usage data covering the pounds applied and percent crop treated for metiram, mancozeb, and maneb were provided to assist in refinement of the dietary risk assessment. These data were delivered to the SRRD as official BEAD documents on March 22 2005. See Appendix G for application rates.

X] Public Comments: We have reviewed the public comments and referred to relevant information when completing the above tasks. The information from the public comments received by BEAD from SRRD will be summarized in a future document.

Attachments: Appendices A through G contain BEAD's official response documents. APPENDIX A Information Relating to Sod Farms and EBDC Use and Usage Over the past several months the Agency has explored several different issues associated with EBDC use on sod farm turf.

The ultimate concern behind the requests is to determine the typical human exposure scenarios in newly established residential lawns from sod. The various types of information we were asked to provide were common post application practices in residential destined sod, maximum preharvest interval ( PHI), and typical rates and application practices on sod farms.

BEAD collected the requested information from several different sources, as follows: 1998 Sod Farm Use and Usage survey [ proprietary data]; Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association [ Mr. M. Aerts] feedback collected from anonymous Florida sod farmers; International Sod Producers Association [ Mr. D. Fender, Executive Director]; and BEAD expertise accrued from personal experience and previous contacts with sod specialists.

Summary The following is a summary of the information arranged by subject that was received from all sources, followed by the individual references in their entirety.

1) Identify common post application practices associated with sod destined for use in residential settings that should impact exposure. a) Pesticide use on sod farms is considered an agricultural use and as such is subject to Worker Protection Standards; therefore a 24 hour REI is in effect for mancozeb use on sod farms. b) Eighty percent of the sod produced is intended for residential use and involves direct purchases by landscape firms that install the sod. c) Sod must generally be planted between 24 and 72 hours after it is cut. d) On 6/ 9/ 04 SRRD asked whether there were any sod industry practices that could lower EBDC residue levels on newly planted sod. i) What we know from previous experiences and personal contacts with growers and turf extension specialists is that turf is commonly watered prior to shipment to keep the roots from drying out prior to installation at the final planting site. ii) Secondly, when sod is rolled up, or layered ( stacked), for shipment the roots and soil directly contact the foliage. This will typically result in a layer of moist soil being deposited on the turf foliage, which may impact the level of EBDC residue exposure after the sod is installed. iii) Additionally, all newly planted turf is supposed to be watered extensively for at least several weeks. Also a minimal amount of foot traffic needs to be observed during this time in order for the sod to become firmly established. All these common practices are perceived as measures which should significantly lower exposure and levels of the available EBDC and metabolite ( ethylenethiourea) residues. 2) The maximum preharvest interval ( PHI) that sod farmers could utilize. a) The maximum acceptable PHI is considered to be 2 days. This is considered to be necessary by FL growers because they have weather conditions conducive to disease problems virtually all year long and often need to treat two days before harvest due to the extremely disease favorable microclimate created when the harvested sod is stacked ( i. e., soil and roots are in direct contact with the sod foliage until the sod is laid). b) Pesticide use on sod farms is considered an agricultural use and as such is subject to Worker Protection Standards; therefore a 24 hour REI is in effect for mancozeb use on sod farms.

3) Typical rates of EBDC fungicides and application practices on sod farms. a) The maximum use rate is about 15 lbs. ai/ acre and would apply to situations when either severe pest pressure conditions exist, or curative applications are utilized. However, typical application rates are lower. b) A maximum number of 4 to 5 EBDC applications are utilized during the 10 to14 month crop cycle. c) The major EBDC target pests are gray leaf spot ( Pyricularia grisea), Pythium blight ( Pythium spp.), and brown patch ( Rhizoctonia solani). d) Specific Fungicide Information: i) Chlorothalonil was the predominant fungicide used. A total of 14,000 acretreatments of chlorothalonil were applied which constituted about 37 percent of the total fungicide usage. ii) Mancozeb and PCNB fungicides were the next most popular fungicides. A total of about 5,000 acre treatments of each of these two fungicides were applied which constitutes about 13 percent of the total fungicide usage. This means that mancozeb is probably used on about 2,600 acres, which equates to about 0.9 percent of the total turf farm acreage. iii) No information was collected on the actual application rates utilized on sod farms. iv) Based on the label rates associated with the target pests on mancozeb labels, the maximum rate ( 17.4 lbs ai/ A) is the only rate recommended for a third of the pests and 13 to 17.4 lbs ai/ A are recommended for another third of the pests. Accordingly, without specific use rate data we can presume that a significant number of users are likely to use these labeled rates. v) Note: Acre treatments is a figure obtained by multiplying the average number of applications by the base acreage treated. Therefore to estimate the base acreage treated you divide acre treatments by the average number of applications. In this survey, the national average number of applications applied was 1.9.

[ Bill Phillips, II, 21April2005] Below are the accounts of Dr. Richard Michell's conversation with Doug Fender and Michael Aerts, as well as a summation of the 1998 turf farm survey [ proprietary data].

A] Personal Communication between Richard Michell and Doug Fender, Executive Director of Turfgrass Producers International  5/ 19/ 04 1) Doug Fender discussed sod farm issues that relate to production practices, fungicide use, and pesticide use. The principal points he made are as follows: 2) A 1998 study reported that only about 38,000 acre treatments of fungicides were applied ( Note: acre treatment totals include multiple treatments to the same areas). 3) Pesticide use on sod farms is considered an agricultural use and as such is subject to Worker Protection Standards; therefore a 24 hour REI is in effect for mancozeb use on sod farms. 4) Most sod fields are harvested once every 12 18 months and contain blends of different grasses. 5) Eighty percent of the sod produced is intended for residential use and involves direct purchases by landscape firms that install the sod. 6) Fungicide use is minimal on sod farms and sod typically will not be sold if there is a reasonable risk of a disease problem developing when or soon after the sod is received and observed by the ultimate residential customers; the reason for this is that sod pickup and replacement costs are high and there is a need to maintain repeat business customers ( e. g., landscape firms). 7) Sod must generally be planted between 24 and 72 hours after it is cut. 8) Only a small percentage (< 10%) of the farms are totally mechanized; however; this should increase significantly due to the invention of a new highly efficient harvester in 2003 which is in such demand that the manufacturer cannot keep up with the demand. 9) Average farm size is about 450 acres ( ranges from50 75 to several thousand acres). 10) Growers typically farm about half of the acreage they own each year. 11) Most growers select turf varieties that do not require high pesticide use to keep their costs down. Very little fungicide usage occurs with chlorothalonil being by far the predominant fungicide used when one is needed; mancozeb was one of the second most used fungicides.

___________________________________________________________________________ B] 6/ 22/ 04 Communication with Michael Aerts, Assistant Director of the Environmental & Pest Management Division, FFVA, regarding FL sod grower issues associated with EBDC fungicides.

His major points were: 1) The maximum acceptable PHI is considered to be 2 days. This is considered to be necessary by FL growers because they have weather conditions conducive to disease problems virtually all year long and often need to treat two days before harvest due to the extremely diseasefavorable microclimate created when the harvested sod is stacked ( i. e., soil and roots are in direct contact with the sod foliage until the sod is re laid). 2) The maximum use rate is about 15 lbs. ai/ acre and would apply to situations when either severe pest pressure conditions exist, or curative applications are utilized. However, typical application rates are lower. 3) A maximum number of 4 to 5 EBDC applications are utilized during the 10 to14 month crop cycle. 4) The major EBDC target pests are gray leaf spot ( Pyricularia grisea), Pythium blight ( Pythium spp.), and brown patch ( Rhizoctonia solani). 5) The cost of using one of the newer systemic alternatives, azoxystrobin ( Heritage), is about $ 350/ acre. 6) The majority of the EBDC fungicide alternatives are systemic compounds that are vulnerable to pest resistant problems. Accordingly, use of these compounds is typically limited to a maximum of two consecutive applications, after which at least one application of an alternative chemistry must be utilized. Since the EBDC fungicides are inexpensive and relatively effective non systemic fungicides they are often the fungicide of choice to serve as a rotational partner for the systemic fungicides.

On 6/ 9/ 04 SRRD asked whether there were any sod industry practices that could lower EBDC residue levels on newly planted sod. What I know from previous experiences and personal contacts with growers and turf extension specialists is that turf is commonly watered prior to shipment to keep the roots from drying out prior to installation at the final planting site. Secondly, when sod is rolled up, or layered ( stacked), for shipment the roots and soil directly contact the foliage. This will typically result in a layer of moist soil being deposited on the turf foliage, which may impact the potential level of EBDC residue exposure after the sod is installed. Additionally, all newly planted turf is supposed to be watered extensively for at least several weeks. Also a minimal amount of foot traffic needs to be observed during this time in order for the sod to become firmly established. All these common practices are perceived as measures which should significantly lower exposure and levels of the available EBDC and metabolite ( ethylenethiourea) residues. Additionally we concur with the findings of the EBDC Task Force relative to the post treatment use practices associated with the harvesting, installation, and establishment of sod in residential settings, that were submitted in response to the risk assessments.

___________________________________________________________________________ C] Summary of the results of a 1998 turf farm survey [ proprietary data], which are relevant to the use of mancozeb and fungicides in general.

1) General Information: A survey was based on 175 respondents out of 1,683 farms, which equates to about 10% of the population of farms. The turf ( sod) farm information was presented for 4 regions ( south, north central, northeast, and west) as well as from a national perspective. Turf farms exist in all states and are usually situated near the perimeter of large metropolitan areas. 2) General Sod Production Information: About 303,000 acres of sod are produced each year on 1,683 farms with an average size of about 180 acres/ farm. The regional farm size averages ranged from 131  219 acres; the northeast and the south had the smallest and largest average farm sizes, respectively. Growers typically take steps to minimize disease problems due to the relatively high cost of fungicide treatments. Measures include selection of turf types and varieties least likely to develop disease problems, blending of several different turf varieties, and proper fertilization and watering practices to induce vigorous plant growth and minimize the creation of disease favorable conditions. When small diseased areas develop, growers will typically destroy the diseased turf by plowing it under, as a means of halting the spread of the disease. Generally disease infestations occur in limited areas of a farm and when fungicide treatments are used they are only applied to the problem areas. The number of turf farms in the south, north central, west and northeast regions constitutes about 47, 31, 14, and 8 percent of the total number of farms, respectively. The sod production acreage in the south, north central, west and northeast regions constitutes about 57, 25, 12, and 6 percent of the total acreage, respectively. 3) General Fungicide Information: The percentage of farms using fungicides in the northeast, south, west and north central regions were 71, 33, 27, and 22, respectively. Although the northeast region had the highest percentage of farms using fungicides, the total acretreatments are actually significantly greater in the south and north central regions due to the significantly higher volume of production acreages in these two regions. The number of fungicide applications used per year averaged 1.9 nationally. The average number of applications used in the west, northeast, north central and south were 0.6, 1.6, 1.8 and 3.0, respectively. Fungicides are typically applied by turf farm employees. Nationally there were 38,000 acre treatments of fungicides applied, which equates to about 20,000 acres being treated based on the average number of applications applied per year; this equates to fungicides being used on around 7% of the total acreage grown. 4) Specific Fungicide Information: Chlorothalonil was the predominant fungicide used. A total of 14,000 acre treatments of chlorothalonil were applied which constituted about 37 percent of the total fungicide usage. Mancozeb and PCNB fungicides were the next most popular fungicides. A total of about 5,000 acre treatments of each of these two fungicides were applied which constitutes about 13 percent of the total fungicide usage. This means that mancozeb is probably used on about 2,600 acres, which equates to about 0.9 percent of the total turf farm acreage. No information was collected on the actual application rates utilized on sod farms. Based on the label rates associated with the target pests on mancozeb labels, the maximum rate ( 17.4 lbs ai/ A) is the only rate recommended for a third of the pests and 13 to 17.4 lbs ai/ A are recommended for another third of the pests. Accordingly, without specific use rate data we can presume that a significant number of users are likely to use these labeled rates.

Note: Acre treatments is a figure obtained by multiplying the average number of applications by the base acreage treated. Therefore to estimate the base acreage treated you divide acre treatments by the average number of applications. In this survey, the national average number of applications applied was 1.9. APPENDIX B Golf Course Use of Mancozeb The information below on golf course use of mancozeb is provided in response to inquiries by HED regarding the EBDC chemicals and will be used to refine their occupational risk assessment of the use of mancozeb on golf courses. The information is based on two market research databases available to EPA and survey data taken from the Golf Course Superintendent's Association. This data source coverage spans the years 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1998. Note that mancozeb is the only EBDC fungicide with use on golf courses, according to the available data sources.

Percent of golf courses using mancozeb 1. There are approximately 16,000 golf courses in the U. S. 2. The available data indicates that approximately 3,000 of them use mancozeb on an annual basis. 3. Thus, approximately 18.75% of golf courses in the U. S. use mancozeb.

Application rate Use of mancozeb on golf courses averages about 10.5 pounds per acre nationally and over 95% of its use is between 9 and 14 pounds. Mancozeb was used on golf courses in 42 states.

Percent of acres treated 1. A total of 3% of the approximately 16 million acres of golf courses are treated with mancozeb. 2. A maximum of 12.5% of tees are treated with mancozeb. 3. A maximum of 51 percent of greens are treated with mancozeb. 4. A maximum of 5% of fairways are treated with mancozeb.

Number of applications Data describing the number of times mancozeb is applied annually is not readily available. However, the below general fungicide use information is useful in setting upper bounds on mancozeb usage. 1. The Golf Course Superintendent's Association report indicates that all fungicides are applied to golf courses an average of 6.1 times. 2. EPA's proprietary data indicates that, on average, greens are treated 8.3 times with a fungicide annually and tees are treated 5.1 times. 3. Given that a variety of fungicides are applied, these numbers serve as a very conservative upper bound to the number of applications.

Athletic Field Turf Use The Sports Turf Managers Association CEO, Kim Heck, reported to us that in 2001 the total US sports turf acreage was estimated to be ~ 7 million acres. She also referred us to Dr. Dave Minner ( Iowa State University, Department of Horticulture for pesticide usage information. Dr. Minner advised us that pesticides are only used on professional and some college fields which he estimated constitutes ~ 1 percent of the sports turf acreage. [ R. Michell April 2005] APPENDIX C Survey of the Incidence of Metiram Applications on Apples Aerial Based on the states identified in the Nov. 1, 2002 QUA report, and in recent usage surveys for 2001 2003 ( EPA proprietary information), over 75 percent of the metiram apple usage occurs in seven states ( MI, NY, VA, NC, PA, OH, SC). Accordingly, apple fungicide specialists in these states were surveyed to determine the nature and extent of aerial application use.

The responses indicated that aerial applications are only known to exist in New York State, which grows about 44,000 acres of apples. The reported incidence of aerial applications was estimated to range from 3 to 5 percent of the 29,000 metiram treated acres. It was estimated that both fixed wing aircraft and helicopters are used in eastern NY, and that only fixed wing aircraft are used in western New York. Commercial applicators are involved in applying all aerial applications.

Aerial applications are primarily used when the ground is too wet to use ground equipment, or when blocks of trees need to be quickly treated before disease infection occurs. Virtually all aerial applications are made in early spring ( green tip thru petal fall) because the post bloom cover sprays include insecticides that require the use of ground sprays to insure optimal coverage of foliage and developing fruit. It was reported that farms 50 to 100 acres or more in size would use aerial applications and that trees are typically planted in blocks of 10 to 20 acres. According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture about 17 percent of NY apple farms are larger than 50 acres and 97 percent are less than 250 acres in size.

The fungicide specialists contacted were: Drs. Mark Longstroth & Phil Schwallier ( MI); Drs. David Rosenberger & Deborah Breth ( NY); Dr. Keith Yoder ( VA); Dr. Turner Sutton ( NC); Dr. James Travis ( PA); Dr. Mike Ellis ( OH); and Dr. Guido Schnabel ( SC).

[ R. Michell 4/ 7/ 05] Timing The table below contains the timing for summer pruning and petal fall for apples in the US by region. The states within each region are listed accordingly. The major metiram usage states are MI, NY, VA, NC, PA, OH, and SC and are addressed in the first three regions listed.

Apple petal fall and summer pruning by region and state. Region States Green Tip Petal Fall** Summer Pruning Appalachian Southern DE, GA, MD, NC, PA, SC, TN, VA, WV 1st of April thru the end of the 2nd week of May 1st of July thru the end of the 2nd week of August New England CT, RI, ME, MA, VT, NH, NJ, NY 1st of April thru the end of the 2nd week of May 3rd week of June thru the end of the 2nd week of August North Central MI, OH 2nd week if April thru the end of the 2nd week of May July   August Pacific Northwest WA, OR, ID 1st of April thru the end of the 2nd week of May* 3rd week of May   1st week of July Pacific South CA, AZ 1st week of February thru the end of the 2nd week of April 2nd week of April thru the end of the 1st week of September * Pink Petal Fall ** As an alternative to using a maximum rate of 4.8 lbs. ai/ acre/ application thru petal fall a 77 day PHI use pattern also exists for apples that allows growers the option of applying up to two additional sprays beyond petal fall. These treatments must utilize a lower maximum rate of 2.4 lbs. ai/ acre and must be applied at least 77 days before harvest. The available data indicates that only about one third of users choose to make applications after petal fall. Source: BEADS's Benefits Assessment ( http:// www. epa. gov/ oppsrrd1/ op/ azinphos/ bead_ Apples1. pdf) [ B. Phillips 4/ 11/ 05] APPENDIX D EBDC use on Leatherleaf Fern Information on EBDC use on Leatherleaf Fern ( LLF) in Florida, where > 70% of the U. S. production is located, was obtained from Dr. Robert Stamps, Professor of Environmental Horticulture and Extension Cut Foliage Specialist, University of Florida. Dr. Stamps has indicated that the EBDC mancozeb is applied four times per year. Harvest is approximately once every two to three months and as a result the reentry for workers is not an issue as there is usually plenty of time between spray and harvest. Included below are the questions posed by BEAD and the answers provided by Dr. Stamps.

Characterization of the Metiram Exposure Concerns Associated with the Production of Leatherleaf Ferns 1. Identify all active ingredient and product names for fungicides applied to leatherleaf fern and their respective target pest( s).

These are the main fungicides used on leatherleaf fern in Florida; however, not all trade names may be listed ( especially for the generics):

chloroneb ( Terraneb), used only occasionally  Rhizoctonia chlorothalonil ( Daconil, Echo, Thalonil), occasionally used   Ascochyta, Colletotrichum, Cylindrocladium, Rhizoctonia fosetyl aluminum ( Aliette), rarely used   Phytophthora, Pythium mancozeb ( Dithane, Penncozeb, Protect T/ O), used regularly   Colletotrichum, Rhizoctonia mefenoxam ( Subdue), rarely used   Phytophthora, Pythium metiram ( Polyram), rarely used   Colletotrichum tebuconazole ( Folicur), used fairly regularly during warm weather   Colletotrichum thiophanate methyl ( 3336, Systec 1998, 6672), used occasionally   Ascochyta, Cylindrocladium 2. Fully characterize the metiram fungicide spray timelines for a typical calendar year ( e. g., number of applications per year, when applied, repeat application interval).

Maximum of four applications per year ( if used at all at a particular farm), usually applied when the incidence of Colletotrichum is highest ( June through September).

3. Provide Crop Production Timelines for a typical calendar year. This should include all activities associated with production of the crop ( planting, harvesting, pesticide use, irrigation, fertilization, etc.) If individual activities are not likely to result in human exposure explain why. Dealing with a perennial crop so planting is not an issue. Fronds are harvested yearround ( although more intensely during the first six months of the year) at about an average of once every two to three months for any given fernery. Most pesticides are commonly applied using the irrigation systems ( chemigation) during the periods when harvesting is not occurring so direct exposure to applicator or workers is minimized. Irrigation/ fertigation is done on a more or less weekly basis.

Source: Robert H. Stamps, Ph. D. , Professor of Environmental Horticulture and Extension Cut Foliage Specialist, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Environmental Horticulture Mid Florida Research and Education Center, 2725 Binion Road, Apopka, FL 32703 8504, Phone: ( 407) 884 2034 ext. 164; Facsimile: ( 407) 814 6186 APPENDIX E EBDC Wettable Powder Use Analysis Uses By Product Overall, the wettable powders constitute ~ 10% of the total lbs of EBDC product applied in the U. S. The use of this formulation varies among states and crops in such a wide distribution as to demonstrate no pattern, or niche, use.

Products Maneb Maneb 80 ( Wp/ D)   87% of the pounds ( ai) were applied to Peppers, Lettuce, Tomatoes, and Cucumber. ( In order of lbs applied)   No information on the label as to a D usage.   Chemigation is listed. Aliette/ Maneb 2+ 2   No longer on the market. Amazin   Not able to locate information to determine the formulation of this product. Metiram No use of WP formulations found in available use database. Mancozeb Manzate 80 WP   89 % of the pounds ( ai) were applied to Potatoes, Apples, Watermelon, Cucumber, and Wine Grapes. ( In order of lbs applied) Penncozeb 80 WP   Penncozeb DF is ~ 60% of the Penncozeb ( WP & DF) market.   53% of the WP ( ai) was applied to Apples.   82% of the pounds ( ai) were applied to Apples, Potatoes, and Wine Grapes. Ridomil Gold MZ   The mancozeb is a WP but the package mix is in a water soluble bag.   Only 1.5% of the total mancozeb applied was this product. Acrobat MZ   83% of the pounds ( ai) were applied to Tobacco. Mancozeb WP   56% of the pounds ( ai) were applied to Apples.   83% of the total pounds ( ai) were applied to Apples, Wine Grapes, and Potatoes. Manex II   Not able to locate information to determine the formulation of this product. Mancocide   Not able to locate information to determine the formulation of this product.

Percent Use of Product The following is a list of the agronomic crops that represent the means of the approximate pounds of EBDC's applied between the years 2001 to 2003. In addition, included is the percent of the total pounds of wettable powder product applied base on the total pounds of EBDC products applied. As an example, for maneb there was 220,000 lbs of EBDC product applied to almonds with 0% being wettable powders. Please note that there were no wettable powder metiram products applied during this time frame. Ridomil Gold MZ was not included in the percent of total wettable powder product applied since the EBDC product is in a mix of other products with all being contained in a water soluble packet. Application of Maneb in Wettable Powder Formulation, 2001 2003 average Crop Approximate pounds of Maneb Applied Percent Applied in Wettable Powder Formulation Almonds 220,000 0% Apples 10,000 0% Beans, Snap < 5,000 0% Broccoli 20,000 1% Cabbage 60,000 0% Cantaloupe < 5,000 0% Carrots < 5,000 0% Cauliflower 10,000 4% Cucumber 30,000 46% Garlic 30,000 0% Grapes, Table < 5,000 33% Grapes, Wine 10,000 6% Lettuce 650,000 7% Onions 40,000 3% Peppers 200,000 25% Potatoes 20,000 5% Pumpkin < 5,000 3% Spinach 10,000 37% Squash 10,000 0% Sugar Beets 10,000 2% Sweet Corn 10,000 0% Tomatoes 120,000 33% Walnuts 280,000 0% Watermelon 20,000 35% Total 1,760,000 9% Source, EPA proprietary data. Note, Usage of maneb was observed in the following formulated products: ( wettable powders) Aliette/ Maneb 2+ 2, Amazin , Maneb 80, ( other) Maneb 75 DF, and Manex. Application of Mancozeb in Wettable Powder Formulation, 2001 2003 average Crop Approximate pounds of Maneb Applied Percent Applied in Wettable Powder Formulation Almonds 10,000 0% Apples 1,330,000 31% Asparagus 30,000 33% Beans, Lima < 5,000 0% Beans, Snap < 5,000 0% Cabbage 10,000 0% Cantaloupe 40,000 25% Carrots < 5,000 0% Cherries < 5,000 0% Cotton < 5,000 0% Cucumber 80,000 38% Garlic < 5,000 0% Grapes, Raisin 10,000 0% Grapes, Table 30,000 33% Grapes, Wine 200,000 30% Lettuce < 5,000 0% Onions 500,000 2% Peanuts 10,000 0% Pears 130,000 23% Peppers 40,000 25% Potatoes 3,140,000 19% Pumpkin 20,000 0% Squash 60,000 17% Sugar Beets 50,000 60% Sweet Corn 100,000 0% Tobacco 40,000 75% Tomatoes 480,000 15% Walnuts < 5,000 0% Watermelon 300,000 27% Wheat, Spring 30,000 67% Wheat, Winter 30,000 0% Total 6,660,000 21% Source, EPA proprietary data. Note, Usage of mancozeb was observed in the following formulated products: ( wettable powders) Acrobat MZ, Dithane M 45, Mancozeb WP, Manzate 80 WP, Penncozeb 80 WP, ( other) Penncozeb DF, Ridomil Gold MZ, Dithane DF, Dithane 45, Gavel 75 DF, Mancozeb 4 F, Manex II, Mancocide, Manzate 75 DF, and Manzate Flowable 4L. Note: Ridomil Gold MZ contains a wettable powder EBDC but was not included in the percent applied because the product is in a water soluble packet. APPENDIX F The Importance of Mancozeb Use on Pears for Control of Pear Psylla Nymphs in the Pacific Northwest R. Michell 3/ 23/ 05 Telephone Conversation with Dr. Michael Willett, Vice President for Scientific Affairs, Northwest Horticultural Council, Yakima, WA 98901, ( 509) 453 3193, willett@ nwhort. org Dr. Willett was called in response to his comments sent to the EBDC docket regarding the importance of mancozeb use on pears for control of pear psylla nymphs in the Pacific Northwest. Below are his comments during our discussion:

1) So far WA is the only state with SLN registrations for this pear use [ WA030038, WA040003]; the maximum application rate ( 6.4 lbs ai/ A) is higher than the maximum application rate on the Section 3 label for pears ( 4.8 lbs ai/ A). 2) WA grows about 24,800 acres of pears. 3) About 16% of the crop is treated with mancozeb ( 2003 NASS). 4) Average number of applications = 1.1. 5) A number of insecticide alternatives with different chemistries appear to be available for control of pear psylla; he was unsure of the relative economic impact of not having mancozeb for this use. 6) For additional information he referred us to Dr. John Dunley, extension entomologist, WSU ( 509) 663 8181x236, dunleyj@ wsu. edu. APPENDIX G Average EBDC application rates are given below to assist in the dietary and occupational risk assessments.

Average Application Rates for Mancozeb, Maneb, and Metiram Crop Mancozeb Average A. I Rate Maneb Average A. I. Rate Metiram Average A. I. Rate Almonds 1.5 3.574 Apples 2.601 2.741 2.228 Asparagus 1.413 1.6 Beans, Lima 0.4 Beans, Snap 0.713 0.847 Broccoli 1.277 Cabbage 0.897 1.086 Cantaloupe 1.185 1.15 Carrots 0.75 0.75 Cauliflower 1.28 Cherries 2.12 Cotton 0.746 Cucumber 1.303 1.333 Garlic 1.5 1 Grapes, Raisin 2.189 1.8 Grapes, Table 2.063 1.525 Grapes, Wine 2.136 2.242 Lettuce 1.259 1.42 Onions 1.513 1.672 Peaches 0.8 Peanuts 1.004 Pears 3.715 6.01 Peppers 0.951 1.177 Potatoes 1.214 0.914 1.392 Pumpkin 1.435 0.939 Spinach 1.251 Squash 1.41 1.119 2.005 Sugar Beets 1.077 1.388 Sweet Corn 0.99 0.993 Tobacco 0.846 Tomatoes 1.065 1.627 Walnuts 0.6 1.751 Watermelon 1.381 1.163 Wheat, Spring 1.092 Wheat, Winter 1 Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service and EPA proprietary data sources, 2001   2003.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 65 (Thursday, April 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20343-20344]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07801]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1304]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before July 3, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1304, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Crawford County, Indiana, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/6674.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Alton..........................  Alton Town Hall, 100 East High
                                          Street, Leavenworth, IN 47137.
Town of English........................  Town Hall, 204 North Main
                                          Street, English, IN 47118.
Town of Leavenworth....................  Town Hall, 636 West Plaza
                                          Drive, Leavenworth, IN 47137.
Town of Marengo........................  Town Hall, 117 East Water
                                          Street, Marengo, IN 47140.
Town of Milltown.......................  Town Hall, 215 West Main
                                          Street, Milltown, IN 47145.
Unincorporated Areas of Crawford County  Crawford County Judicial
                                          Complex, 715 Judicial Plaza
                                          Drive, English, IN 47118.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Martin County, Indiana, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.in.gov/dnr/water/6474.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Loogootee......................  City Municipal Building, 401
                                          John F. Kennedy Avenue,
                                          Loogootee, IN 47553.
Town of Shoals.........................  Town Hall, 201 Water Street,
                                          Shoals, IN 47581.
Unincorporated Areas of Martin County..  Martin County Courthouse, 111
                                          South Main Street, Shoals, IN
                                          47581.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-07801 Filed 4-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 19347]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8321]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2500-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits tariff filing
per 35: Compliance filing to conform Attachment M of APS's OATT to be
effective 8/31/2010.
    Filed Date: 01/27/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110127-5146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 5, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2224-003.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35: Compliance Filing to State Currently Effective
ICAP Demand Curves to be effective 4/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110328-5173.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 31, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3161-001.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Resubmittal of Service Agreements/LGIAs with Martinsdale to
be effective 9/10/2009.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110328-5174.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 18, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3203-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): S55 Interim ISA Original Service Agreement No. 2800
to be effective 2/25/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110328-5137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 18, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3204-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
    Description: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(1): Rate Year 2 amendments PASNY/EDDS to be
effective 4/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110328-5158.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 18, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3205-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii): W2-014 ? Interim ISA Original Service Agreement No.
2797 to be effective 2/25/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110328-5172.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 18, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3207-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits Notice of
Cancellation of Original Service Agreement No. 2397 with Zion Energy
LLC and Commonwealth Edison Company.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110328-5178.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 18, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3208-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits Notice of
Cancellation of Original Service Agreement No. 2640 with Zion Energy
LLC and Commonwealth Edison Company.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110328-5179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 18, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    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 should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 29, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8321 Filed 4-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47092-47095]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15489]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1504; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00473-A]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Embraer S.A. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Embraer S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-505 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by an occurrence of corrosion on the clutch
retaining bolt of the aileron autopilot servo mount. This proposed AD
would require repetitively replacing the clutch retaining bolt and
washer of the aileron autopilot servo mount, as specified in an
Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC) AD, which
is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by September 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5

p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1504; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For ANAC service information that is proposed for IBR in
this NPRM, contact ANAC, Continuing Airworthiness Technical Branch
(GTAC), Rua Doutor Orlando Feirabend Filho, 230--Centro Empresarial
Aquarius--Torre B--Andares 14 a 18, Parque Residencial Aquarius, CEP
12.246-190--S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos Campos--SP, Brazil; phone: 55
(12) 3203-6600; email: anac.gov.br">[email protected]anac.gov.br; website: anac.gov.br/en/. You
may find this material on the ANAC website at sistemas.anac.gov.br/
certificacao/DA/DAE.asp. It is also available at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1504.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1504; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00473-A'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Jim
Rutherford, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    The ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued
ANAC AD 2023-02-01R1, effective March 14, 2023 (referred to after this
as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on certain serial-
numbered Embraer Model EMB-505 airplanes. The MCAI states that an
occurrence of corrosion was found on the clutch retaining bolt of the
aileron autopilot servo mount. This condition could result in failure
of the clutch retaining bolt of the aileron autopilot servo mount,
which could disengage the clutch from the drive pin and jam the aileron
controls, resulting in reduced controllability of the airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1504.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed ANAC AD 2023-02-01R1, which specifies procedures
for replacing the clutch retaining bolt and washer of the aileron
autopilot servo mount.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI described above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after
determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to
exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in ANAC AD 2023-02-01R1 described previously, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate ANAC AD 2023-02-01R1 by reference in the
FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance
with ANAC AD 2023-02-01R1 in its entirety through that incorporation,
except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory
text of this proposed AD. Service information required by ANAC AD 2023-
02-01R1 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1504 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 505 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace bolt and washer.........  1 work-hour x $85               $50   $135 per             $68,175 per
                                   per hour = $85.                       replacement          replacement
                                                                         interval.            interval.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, all of the costs associated
with the initial bolt and washer replacement may be covered under
warranty.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Embraer S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2023-1504; Project Identifier MCAI-
2023-00473-A.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by September 5, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Embraer S.A. Model EMB-505 airplanes, as
identified in Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil
(ANAC) AD 2023-02-01R1, effective March 14, 2023 (ANAC AD 2023-02-
01R1), certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2215, Autopilot Main
Servo.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an occurrence of corrosion on the clutch
retaining bolt of the aileron autopilot servo mount. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the corrosion in the clutch retaining
bolt of the aileron autopilot servo mount. The unsafe condition, if
not addressed, could result in failure of the clutch retaining bolt
of the aileron autopilot servo mount, which could disengage the
clutch from the drive pin and jam the aileron controls, resulting in
reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, ANAC AD 2023-02-01R1.

(h) Exceptions to ANAC AD 2023-02-01R1

    (1) Where ANAC AD 2023-02-01R1 refers to February 6, 2023, the
effective date of ANAC AD 2023-02-01, this AD requires using the
effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where ANAC AD 2023-02-01R1 requires replacing a part with a
new part, for the purposes of this AD, ``new'' means zero flight
hours.
    (3) Where the ``NOTE'' to Table 01 in ANAC AD 2023-02-01R1
specifies ``If the airplane operation age and/or the flight hours
criteria change before the SB accomplishment, the most restrictive
criteria must be obeyed,'' this AD requires complying with the most
restrictive criteria in Table 01 of ANAC AD 2023-02-01R1.
    (4) This AD does not adopt paragraph (d) of ANAC AD 2023-02-
01R1.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in ANAC AD 2023-02-
01R1 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer,
this AD does not include that requirement.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, mail
it to the address identified in paragraph (k) of this AD or email
to: [email protected]. If mailing information, also submit
information by email. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.

(k) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Jim Rutherford,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil AD
2023-02-01R1, effective March 14, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]

    (3) For ANAC AD 2023-02-01R1, contact ANAC, Continuing
Airworthiness Technical Branch (GTAC), Rua Doutor Orlando Feirabend
Filho, 230--Centro Empresarial Aquarius--Torre B--Andares 14 a 18,
Parque Residencial Aquarius, CEP 12.246-190--S[atilde]o Jos[eacute]
dos Campos--SP, Brazil; phone: 55 (12) 3203-6600; email:
anac.gov.br">[email protected]anac.gov.br; website: anac.gov.br/en/. You may find this
material on the ANAC website at sistemas.anac.gov.br/certificacao/
DA/DAE.asp.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on July 17, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-15489 Filed 7-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 236 (Monday, December 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58267-58270]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26626]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2017-0002-N-26]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice
announces that FRA is forwarding the Information Collection Requests
(ICRs) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and comment. The ICRs describe the information collections
and their expected burden. On September 13, 2017, FRA published a
notice providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICRs.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
January 10, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the ICRs to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer.
Comments may also be sent via email to OMB at the following address:
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 25, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202)
493-6292); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information Collection Clearance Officer,
Office of

Administration, Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mail Stop 35,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8-12. On September 13, 2017, FRA published a 60-
day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on the ICRs for
which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 82 FR 43079. FRA received no
comments in response to this notice.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5
CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB
believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file
relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public
comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB
within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICRs regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    The summaries below describe the ICRs that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:

    Title: Identification of Cars Moved under 49 CFR 232.3(d) (Formerly
Order 13528).
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0506.
    Abstract: This collection of information identifies certain
railroad freight cars authorized to move under 49 CFR 232.3(d)
(formerly Interstate Commerce Commission Order 13528). Paragraph (d) of
49 CFR 232.3 allows for the movement of certain railroad freight cars
without air brakes from initial terminal locations or through
interchange locations under certain conditions.
    Paragraph (d) of 49 CFR 232.3 requires the cars to be identified by
a card attached to the side of the equipment specifically noting and
signed by the shipper that the car is being moved under the authority
of that paragraph. Railroads typically use carrier bad order forms or
tags for these purposes. These forms are readily available from all
carrier repair facilities. If a car moving under 49 CFR 232.3(d) is not
properly tagged, a carrier is not allowed to move the car. Section
232.3(d)(3) does not require carriers or shippers to retain cards or
tags. When a car bearing the two tags for movement under this provision
arrives at its destination, the tags are simply removed. FRA estimates
approximately 400 cars per year are moved under this regulation.
Railroad employees use the information collected to ensure that cars
moved in accordance with Order 13528 arrive at the correct destination.
These records are not maintained for the purpose of information
collection per se.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a current information
collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 755 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 800.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 67 hours.

    Title: U.S. Locational Requirement for Dispatching U.S. Rail
Operations.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0556.
    Abstract: With one exception, 49 CFR part 241 requires, in the
absence of a waiver, that all dispatching of railroad operations
occurring in the United States be performed in the United States. A
railroad may, however, conduct dispatching from Mexico or Canada in an
emergency, but only for the duration of the emergency. A railroad
relying on this exception must provide written notification of its
action to the FRA Regional Administrator of each FRA region in which
the railroad emergency operation occurs as soon as practicable; such
notification is not required before addressing the emergency. The
information collected under this rule is used as part of FRA's
oversight function to ensure that extraterritorial dispatchers comply
with applicable safety regulations.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a current information
collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 4 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 1.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 8 hours.

    Title: Safety and Health Requirements Related to Camp Cars.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0595.
    Abstract: Subparts C and E of 49 CFR part 228 address the
construction of railroad-provided sleeping quarters (camp cars) and set
certain safety and health requirements for such camp cars.
Specifically, subpart E of part 228 prescribes minimum safety and
health requirements for camp cars that a railroad provides as sleeping
quarters to any of its train employees, signal employees, or
dispatching service employees (covered-service employees), and
individuals employed to maintain its right-of-way. Subpart E requires
railroad-provided camp cars to be clean, safe, sanitary, and equipped
with indoor toilets, potable water, and other features to protect the
health of car occupants. Subpart C of part 228 prohibits a railroad
from positioning a camp car intended for occupancy in the immediate
vicinity of a switching or humping yard which handles railcars
containing hazardous material (see 49 CFR 228.102). Generally, the
requirements of subparts C and E of part 228 are intended to provide
covered-service employees an opportunity for rest free from the
interruptions caused by noise under the control of the railroad.
    The information collected under this rule is used by FRA to ensure
railroads operating camp cars comply with all the requirements mandated
in this regulation to protect the health and safety of camp car
occupants. Specifically, the information collected is used by FRA
inspectors to verify that railroads operating camp cars inspect each
water hydrant, hose, or nozzle used for supplying potable water to a
camp car water system prior to use and keep records of these
inspections required under Sec.  228.323. Each such hose or nozzle used
must be cleaned and sanitized as part of the inspection. A signed,
dated record of this inspection must be kept within the camp for the
period of the connection. When the connection is terminated, a copy of
each

of these records must be submitted promptly to a centralized location
for the railroad and maintained for one year from the date the
connection was terminated. Review of the required record enables FRA
inspectors to closely monitor water hydrants, hoses, and nozzles used
for supplying potable water to a camp car water system are properly
cleaned, sanitized, and inspected in order to prevent camp car
occupants from drinking contaminated water. The information collected
under Sec.  228.323 is also used by FRA to confirm that only trained
individuals are permitted to fill the potable water systems.
    Furthermore, under this section, FRA inspectors verify that
railroads keep essential certification records/copies regarding the
safety of potable water from a different local source. The requirement
states that each time that potable water is drawn from a different
local source, the railroad must obtain a certificate from a State or
local health authority indicating that the water from this source is of
a quality not less than that prescribed in the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency or obtain such a certificate by a certified
laboratory following testing for compliance with those standards. The
current certification must be kept within the camp for the duration of
the connection. When the connection is terminated, a copy of each of
these records must be submitted promptly to a centralized location for
the railroad and maintained for one year from the date the connection
was terminated. Certification by a State or local health authority or
testing by a certified laboratory and FRA review of certification
records help ensure that drinking water used by camp car occupants
meets Federal standards and is safe for consumption.
    Also, under Sec.  228.323, FRA inspectors verify that necessary
flushing records are kept by railroads operating camp cars. Under the
requirement, each potable water system must be drained and flushed with
a disinfecting solution at least once every 120 days. The railroad must
maintain a record of the draining and flushing of each separate system
within the camp for the last two drain and flush cycles. The record
must contain the date of the work and the name(s) of the individual(s)
performing the work. The original record must be maintained with the
camp. A copy of each of these records must be sent to a centralized
location for the railroad and maintained for one year. To be safe for
consumption by camp car occupants, it is critical that potable water
systems be drained and flushed periodically with a disinfecting
solution to prevent the growth of bacteria that causes sickness. FRA
closely monitors the required flushing and taste records to ensure that
this necessary task is completed on a continuing basis while camp cars
are operational, especially when camp car occupants report experiencing
taste problems with the drinking water.
    Under Sec.  228.331, FRA ensures that any railroad using camp cars
submits a master emergency preparedness plan pertaining to life safety
and prominently display a copy of this plan in all their camp cars so
that all camp occupants can view it at their convenience. FRA reviews
each plan to ensure that it addresses the following items: (1) The
means used to be aware of and notify all occupants of impending weather
threats, including thunderstorms, tornados, hurricanes, floods and
other major weather related risks; (2) shelter-in-place and emergency-
evacuation instructions for each of the specific threats identified;
and (3) the address and telephone number of the nearest emergency
medical facility and directions on how to get there from the camp car.
Camp car occupants use this information to take necessary action to
protect their lives and health.
    Finally, under Sec.  228.333, railroads must take remedial action
within 24 hours after receiving a good faith notice from a camp car
occupant or an employee labor organization or notice from FRA of non-
compliance with this subpart E. Railroads use the good faith notices or
notice from FRA to correct each non-complying condition on a camp car.
If the non-complying condition is not correctable, the railroad has to
cease use of the camp car as sleeping quarters for each occupant. FRA
inspectors use this information to ensure that railroads take necessary
remedial actions for camp cars with non-complying conditions.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a current information
collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 1 railroad.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 11,206.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 1,043 hours.

    Title: Training, Qualification, and Oversight for Safety-Related
Railroad Employees.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0597.
    Abstract: On November 7, 2014, FRA published a final rule--
amendments to 49 CFR parts 214 and 232 and new part 243--establishing
minimum training standards for all safety-related railroad employees,
as required by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. Part 243
requires each railroad or contractor that employs one or more safety-
related employees to develop and submit a training program to FRA for
approval and to designate the minimum training qualifications for each
occupational category of employee. Part 243 also requires most
employers to conduct periodic oversight of their own employees and
annual written reviews of their training programs to close performance
gaps.
    Additionally, amended part 214 requires specific training and
qualification of operators of roadway maintenance machines that can
hoist, lower, and horizontally move a suspended load.
    Finally, part 232 clarifies the existing training requirements for
railroad and contractor employees who perform inspections, tests, or
maintenance of brake system.
    FRA uses the information collected to ensure each employer--
railroad or contractor--conducting operations subject to new part 243,
and railroads subject to amended parts 214 and 232 as appropriate, have
developed, adopted, modified, submitted, and complied with a training
program for each category and subcategory of safety-related railroad
employee. Each program must have training components identified so that
FRA will understand how the program works when it reviews the program
for approval. Further, FRA reviews the required training programs to
ensure they include the following: Initial, ongoing, and on-the-job
criteria; testing and skills evaluation measures designed to foster
continual compliance with Federal standards; and the identification of
critical safety defects and plans for immediate remedial actions to
correct them.
    In response to petitions for reconsideration, FRA has extended the
effective date for developing the required training program under Sec.
243.101 for employers with 400,000 or more total annual employee work
hours to January 1, 2019, and for employers with less than 400,000
total annual employee work hours to May 1, 2020.
    Type of Request: Extension with change of a current information
collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 1,550 railroads/contractors/training
organizations/learning institutions.

    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 71,752.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 281,752 hours.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2017-26626 Filed 12-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P