[Federal Register: November 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 58277-58278]
[DOCID:fr12no09-49]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0164-200917; FRL-8980-1]

Adequacy Status of the Tennessee Portion of the Bi-State Memphis
Maintenance Plan 8-Hour Ozone Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for
Transportation Conformity Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of adequacy.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is notifying the public that it has found that the motor
vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for Shelby County, Tennessee in the
1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision, submitted on February 26, 2009, by the Tennessee Department
of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), are adequate for transportation
conformity purposes. Shelby County is one of the counties in the bi-
state Memphis Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Crittenden
County, Arkansas is the other county in the bi-state Memphis Area.
Through a separate action EPA has already found the Crittenden County
budgets adequate for transportation conformity purposes. This action
relates only to the Shelby County, Tennessee budgets. As a result of
EPA's finding, Shelby County must use the MVEBs for future conformity

determinations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

DATES: These MVEBs are effective November 27, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dianna Smith, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street,
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Ms. Smith can also be reached by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
finding is available at EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/
otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is simply an announcement of a
finding that EPA has already made. EPA Region 4 sent a letter to TDEC
on
    September 18, 2009, stating that the MVEBs identified for Shelby
County in Tennessee's maintenance plan SIP revision for their portion
of the bi-state Memphis Area, submitted on February 26, 2009, are
adequate and must be used for transportation conformity determinations
in Shelby County, Tennessee. The bi-state Memphis, Tennessee 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area is comprised of Shelby County in Tennessee and
Crittenden County in Arkansas. Tennessee's redesignation request and
maintenance plan submittal addresses only MVEBs for the Tennessee
portion of this Area (i.e., Shelby County). The MVEBs for the Arkansas
portion of this Area are addressed in a separate submittal provided by
the State of Arkansas. In a previous action, EPA found the MVEBs
associated with Crittenden County (as a part of the bi-state Memphis
1997 8-hour ozone area) adequate for transportation conformity purpose.
More details on EPA's finding for the Crittenden County MVEBs can be
obtained at the EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/
transconf/pastsips.htm.
    EPA posted the availability of the Shelby County MVEBs on EPA's Web
site on March 12, 2009, as part of the adequacy process, for the
purpose of soliciting comments. The adequacy comment period ran from
March 12, 2009, through April 13, 2009. During EPA's adequacy comment
period, no adverse comments were received on the Shelby County MVEBs.
Through this notice, EPA is informing the public that these MVEBs are
adequate for transportation conformity. This finding has also been
announced on EPA's conformity Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/transconf/pastsips.htm. The adequate MVEBs are provided
in the following table:

                                   Shelby County, Tennessee 8-Hour Ozone MVEBs
                                                 [Tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                2006              2009              2017              2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX.....................................            55.878            55.620            55.173            54.445
VOC.....................................            25.216            27.240            18.323            13.817
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the
Clean Air Act. EPA's conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93, requires that
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to state air
quality implementation plans and establishes the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they do so. Conformity to a
SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
    The criteria by which EPA determines whether a SIP's MVEBs are
adequate for transportation conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). We have also described the process for determining the
adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in our July 1, 2004, final rulemaking
entitled, ``Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the New 8-
hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity
Rule Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule
Changes'' (69 FR 40004). Please note that an adequacy review is
separate from EPA's completeness review, and it should not be used to
prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of Tennessee's maintenance plan SIP
revision submittal for Shelby County. Even if EPA finds a budget
adequate, the maintenance plan SIP revision submittal could later be
disapproved.
    Within 24 months from the effective date of this notice, the
transportation partners will need to demonstrate conformity to the new
MVEBs, if the demonstration has not already been made, pursuant to 40
CFR 93.104(e). See, 73 FR 4419 (January 24, 2008).

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

    Dated: October 29, 2009.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E9-27170 Filed 11-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


sum of 4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-dimethyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-1-sulfonamide and its metabolite, 4- chloro-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-2-carbonitrile, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of cyazofamid
4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-dimethyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)-
1H-imidazole-1-sulfonamide, including the metabolite
4-chloro-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-2-
carbonitrile

None
Commodity[1]
Tolerance (ppm) /Maximum Residue Limit (mg/kg)

US
Canada
Mexico[2]
Codex[3]
Bean, succulent
0.5

Bean, succulent, shelled
0.08

Leafy greens subgroup 4A
10

Basil, fresh leaves
30

Basil, dried leaves
90

Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C
0.02
0.02 potatoes

Vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10
0.9
0.2 tomatoes

Completed:  M. Negussie; 02/02/2012
[1] Includes only commodities of interest for this action.  Tolerance values should be the HED recommendations and not those proposed by the applicant.
2 Mexico adopts US tolerances and/or Codex MRLs for its export purposes.

3 * = absent at the limit of quantitation; Po = postharvest treatment, such as treatment of stored grains.  PoP = processed postharvest treated commodity, such as processing of treated stored wheat. (fat) = to be measured on the fat portion of the sample. MRLs indicated as proposed have not been finalized by the CCPR and the CAC.

Appendix C: Chemical Names and Structures of Cyazofamid and Identified Metabolites

Table C.	Identification of Compounds from the Cyazofamid Metabolism Studies.
Common name/ code/matrix
Chemical name
	Chemical structure
Cyazofamid/
IKF-916

4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-dimethyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-1-sulfonamide

CCIM

4-chloro-5-p-tolylimidazole-2-carbonitrile

CCBA

4-(4-chloro-2-cyanoimidazol-5-yl)benzoic acid

CCIM-AM

4-chloro-5-p-tolylimidazole-2-carboxamide

CTCA
4-chloro-5-p-tolylimidazole-2-carboxylic acid


September 26  --  December 13, 2013
Peer Review Meeting of Methylene Chloride (CASRN 75-09-2)-DCM
and N-Methylpyrrolidone (CASRN 872-50-4)-NMP

                 BIOSKETCHES FOR DCM-NMP PEER REVIEW PANELISTS
Dr. Gary Ginsberg (Chair) is a toxicologist at the Connecticut Department of Public Health within the Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Assessment. He has responsibility for human health risk assessments conducted within the state government. Dr. Ginsberg serves as adjunct faculty at the Yale School of Public Health and is an Assistant Clinical Professor at the University of Connecticut School of Community Medicine. He is currently a member of the National Academy of Sciences committee reviewing inorganic arsenic and served on two previous NAS committees (Human Biomonitoring, 2007; USEPA Risk Methods which produced Science and Decisions, 2009). He was first author of a manuscript that won best paper of the year award from the Society of Toxicology Risk Assessment Specialty Section, 2009. Dr. Ginsberg was a member of USEPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee until 2009 and is currently a member of USEPA's Science Advisory Board. He has participated on expert review panels for state governments in Minnesota, New Jersey, California and Massachusetts. He was an Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) fellow with USEPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment from 2010 to 2012. He has published in the areas of early life stage vulnerability, pharmacokinetic modeling, genetic polymorphisms, metabolism in aging populations, fish consumption advisories and environmental risk assessment. Dr. Ginsberg's toxicology experience has involved a variety of settings: basic research, teaching, working within the pesticide and consulting industries, and now working in public health. Dr. Ginsberg is also co-author of a book on toxics for the lay public, "What's Toxic, What's Not:" Berkley Books, December 2006.
Dr. Thomas W. Armstrong is the Principal Investigator since 2008 at his sole proprietor consulting company, TWA8HR Occupational Hygiene Consulting, LLC. Dr. Armstrong received his B.A. in Chemistry, M.S. in Environmental Health, and Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering, all from Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He currently has an Adjunct Professor appointment at the Drexel University School of Public Health. Before he retired from ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences in 2008, his last position there was as Senior Scientific Associate in Exposure Sciences. While at ExxonMobil, he developed exposure assessment strategies for and provided support to multiple epidemiology studies, including work under contract to the University of Colorado to support multiple general population epidemiology investigations in Shanghai, China. Also, while at ExxonMobil, Dr. Armstrong served on the company's internal occupational exposure limit committee and published a method for adjusting exposure limits to extended work schedules. His ongoing research activities include exposure assessment for epidemiology studies, mathematical methods to estimate exposures to chemicals and quantitative risk assessments for Legionella and Legionnaires' disease. He has 30 peer reviewed publications, has contributed multiple chapters to three books and has provided peer reviews to eight journals. Dr. Armstrong has presented on diverse topics at symposia in the United States and abroad. He was the lead instructor for American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) professional development courses on mathematical modeling to assess chemical exposures, and Monte Carlo Simulation techniques in exposure assessment, and has taught in other courses, including a review of toxicology for industrial hygienists. He remains active in AIHA risk assessment, epidemiology and exposure assessment committee activities. Dr. Armstrong was a member of two National Academy of Sciences committees that conducted reviews of and completed reports on risk assessments for two national biocontainment laboratories. In addition, he provided support to a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) review of the institute's occupational exposure assessment strategy, and served on a NIOSH National Occupational Research Agenda committee. He also participated in several panels on EPA children's health issues.
Dr. Frank A. Barile is Professor of Applied and Clinical Toxicology in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, St. John's University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, New York. He received his Ph.D. in Toxicology (1982) at St. John's University. He completed post-doctoral fellowships at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, and Columbia University, NY. In 1984, he was appointed Assistant Professor in the Department of Health Sciences at City University of NY. Sixteen years later he rejoined St. John's University in the Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences. Dr. Barile holds memberships in the U.S. Society of Toxicology, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the New York Academy of Sciences. He was elected President of the In Vitro & Alternative Methods Specialty Section of the U.S. Society of Toxicology (2005-2008) and was recently elected VP-elect for the Dermal Toxicology Specialty Section (2013-2014), followed by President. He is the recipient of the U.S. Public Health Service Medallion from the Director of the NIEHS, Dr. Linda Birnbaum (June, 2009). Dr. Barile is the recipient of PHS research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIGMS) for the last 20 years, as well as from the Alternative Research & Development Foundation (Jenkinton, PA) and the International Foundation for Ethical Research (Chicago, IL). Dr. Barile has authored approximately 75 papers and abstracts in peer-reviewed biomedical and toxicology journals, as well as five books and three chapters, including Clinical Toxicology: Principles and Mechanisms, 2nd edition, 2010 (Informa HealthCare, UK) and Principles of Toxicology Testing, 2nd edition, 2013 (CRC Press, FL). Recently published articles describe the development of in vitro ocular toxicity testing methods for detecting irritant and corrosive properties of chemicals (J. Pharmacological Toxicological Methods, 2010) and highlight epigenetic mechanisms using trace metals in embryonic stem cells (Toxicology Letters, 2012). Dr. Barile serves on the editorial boards of Toxicology In Vitro (2007-present) and J. Pharmacological & Toxicological Methods (2008-present). He is currently Editor-in-Chief of Toxicology In Vitro (2012-present). He continues fundamental research on the cytotoxic effects of environmental chemicals on cultured human and mammalian embryonic stem cells.
Dr. Anneclaire J. De Roos is Associate Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health in the Drexel University School of Public Health in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She earned a bachelor of arts degree (geography/ecosystems) from the University of California at Los Angeles, a master of public health (MPH) degree (epidemiology/biostatistics) from the University of California at Berkeley, and a PhD (epidemiology) in the year 2000 from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research interests and experience are primarily in the study of occupational and environmental exposures to chemicals and radiation as risk factors for cancer, autoimmune diseases, and intermediate biologic effects. Dr. De Roos' dissertation research focused on parental occupational exposures as risk factors for childhood cancer in their offspring. From 2000-2002, Dr. De Roos trained as a postdoctoral fellow in the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics of the National Cancer Institute, where she gained experience in studies of genetic determinants of disease and intermediate biologic effects (immune function, inflammation) of environmental exposures. She was a member of the faculty at the University of Washington (UW) and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA from 2003-2012, where her research focused on environmental risk factors for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemias, and other cancers, including workplace exposures (pesticides, solvents), persistent organic pollutants (PCBs, dioxins), and point sources of pollution (industrial facilities, traffic). Dr. De Roos has been a member of the International Lymphoma Epidemiology (InterLymph) Consortium since 2005, and is currently funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to conduct a consortium-based evaluation of occupational solvent exposure as a potential cause of multiple myeloma. At the UW, Dr. De Roos taught courses in cancer epidemiology, environmental and occupational epidemiology, public health in the media, and advanced epidemiologic methods. In her current position at Drexel, Dr. De Roos is developing a new masters' level course in environmental risk assessment. She serves as a frequent reviewer for occupational and environmental health journals, most notably as an editorial review board member for Environmental Health Perspectives. She has published over 90 refereed research articles, authored 7 book chapters, and made numerous invited presentations at national and international conferences. Dr. De Roos has also served on several expert committees in recent years, including those reviewing formaldehyde for NIEHS's Report on Carcinogens and the trichloroethylene (TCE) health assessment document for the Environmental Protection Agency.
Dr. Ronald D. Hood is Principal of Ronald D. Hood and Associates, Toxicology Consultants. He also is Professor Emeritus of Biological Sciences, having retired from the faculty of the Cell, Molecular, and Developmental Biology Section of the Department of Biological Sciences of the University of Alabama after 32 years of service, and he has been an Adjunct Professor of Public Health, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham. Dr. Hood received his Ph.D. from Purdue University in 1969 in Reproductive Physiology and joined the faculty of the University of Alabama as an Assistant Professor. He was promoted to the rank of Professor by 1978, and he also served as Interim Department Chair from July 1996 to August, 1997. In addition, Dr. Hood was Consultant in Environmental Medicine for the U.S. Veterans Administration, Office of Medicine and Surgery, Agent Orange Special Projects Office (off site), during 1983, and a Special Consultant, Science Advisory Board, EPA, from 1983 through 1993. He has served as a consultant to pharmaceutical, chemical, and biotech companies, trade associations, federal and state regulatory agencies, and law firms since 1978. Dr. Hood presented toxicology training courses to regulatory personnel of Health Canada annually from 2006 to 2011. Dr. Hood has served as a member of the editorial boards of Fundamental and Applied Toxicology and Toxicological Sciences, and he was an ad hoc member of EPA's Food Quality Protection Act Science Review Board. Dr. Hood has participated in workshops and expert panels to provide expertise on developmental toxicity and risk assessment, and he was inducted as a Fellow of the Academy of Toxicological Sciences. Dr. Hood has authored, coauthored or edited more than 100 publications (research articles, book chapters and books) in the areas of developmental and reproductive toxicology. Dr. Hood's most recent edited book is Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology, a Practical Approach, Third Edition, published in 2012, by the Informa Healthcare division of CRC Press. Dr. Hood has been active in the Teratology Society, chairing the Membership, Education, Constitution/Bylaws, and Website committees. He also has been active in the Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology Specialty Section of the Society of Toxicology, and he has served as their newsletter editor.
Dr. Dale Hattis is a Research Professor at the George Perkins Marsh Institute at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, with a B.A. in Biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley (1967), and a Ph.D. in Genetics from Stanford University (1974). For the past 39 years Dr. Hattis has been engaged in the development and application of methodology to assess the health, ecological and economic impacts of regulatory actions. His work has focused on the development of methodology to incorporate interindividual variability data and quantitative mechanistic information into risk assessments for both cancer and noncancer endpoints, and he has published more than 200 technical papers, including on physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling. Specific studies have included pharmacokinetic modeling and risks from developmental effects of the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos, dosimetric uncertainties in epidemiological information on dioxin cancer risks, age-related differences in pharmacokinetic processes and susceptibility for carcinogenesis, renal effects of cadmium, reproductive effects of ethoxyethanol, neurological and cardiovascular effects of methyl mercury, neurological effects of acrylamide, chronic lung function impairment from coal dust, four pharmacokinetic-based risk assessments for carcinogens (for perchloroethylene, ethylene oxide, butadiene and diesel particulates), an analysis of uncertainties in pharmacokinetic modeling for perchloroethylene, and an analysis of differences among species in processes related to carcinogenesis. He currently is a member of the National Toxicology Program Board of Scientific Counselors. In the past, he has served as a member of the Environmental Health Committee of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board, and as a member of the Food Quality Protection Act Science Review Board. He has been a councilor and is a Fellow of the Society for Risk Analysis.
Dr. John C. Kissel is currently Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1990. He held a prior position in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. Dr. Kissel holds a Ph.D. in Civil/Environmental Engineering from Stanford University and is a registered professional engineer. Dr. Kissel's research interests generally involve human exposure assessment, with emphasis on exposures related to waste management, agricultural and residential use of pesticides, and consumer products. He is particularly interested in probabilistic prediction of aggregate exposure and reconciliation of model predictions with observed biomarker data. Dr. Kissel and his students have produced multiple papers describing human exposure to soil that are listed as "key studies" in US EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook. Dr. Kissel is a former President and Councilor of the International Society of Exposure Science and also served one term as chair of the Exposure Assessment Specialty Group within the Society for Risk Analysis. He was a member of a National Academy of Sciences Committee that evaluated Superfund-related remediation of mining and smelting related contamination in the Coeur d'Alene Basin in Idaho and a reviewer of the WHO environmental health criteria document on Dermal Exposure, which will be published soon. Dr. Kissel has served as an ad hoc member of US EPA's FIFRA Science Advisory Panel on multiple occasions and is currently a member of EPA's Human Studies Review Board. His recent research activities have been funded by US EPA, US DOE, NIOSH and the Washington State Departments of Ecology and Health.
Dr. Stephen B. Pruett is Professor of Immunotoxicology and Head of the Department of Basic Sciences at the College of Veterinary Medicine, Mississippi State University. He earned his B.S. degree from Northwestern State University of Louisiana (Microbiology) and his Ph.D. degree from Louisiana State University School of Medicine in Shreveport (Immunology). He had post-doctoral training at the University of Alabama of Birmingham School of Medicine (Immunology) with Dr. J. Claude Bennett, and received training in toxicology and pharmacology during a Sabbatical with Dr. Albert E. Munson at the Medical College of Virginia. Dr. Pruett began his academic research career as an assistant professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Mississippi State University and left at the rank of professor after 13 years to take a similar position at the LSU Health Sciences Center in Shreveport. He returned to Mississippi State University in his current position after 10 years at LSU. His research interests include the effects of drugs, chemicals, and stress on the immune system. He has a long interest in pesticides, drugs of abuse, and psychological stressors and has been funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for work in each of these areas. He is currently a member of the Innate Immunity and Inflammation Study Section for NIH and has served as a frequent ad hoc grant reviewer for several other NIH study sections beginning in 1990. He serves on the editorial boards of two leading toxicology journals, Toxicological Sciences and Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, and recently served several years as an Associate Editor for the Journal of Immunology. He has served in several leadership positions in the Society of Toxicology, including President of the South Central Chapter and President of the Immunotoxicology Specialty Section. He is a Fellow of the Academy of Toxicological Sciences and a member of the American College of Toxicologists. He has published more than 115 peer-reviewed manuscripts and 10 book chapters, and has been an invited speaker at numerous meetings in the U.S., Australia, Europe, and Japan.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 221 (Friday, November 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80325-80326]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25487]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA- 2023-0023; OMB No. 1660-0114]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection,
Comment Request; FEMA Preparedness Grants: Port Security Grant Program
(PSGP)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 30-day notice of revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension,
with change, of a currently approved information collection. In
accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the information collection
activities required to administer the Port Security Grant Program
(PSGP) and an additional new form to facilitate extension requests.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 18, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please submit
comments at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2023-0023.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the Agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used to submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and
Security Notice that is

available via a link on the homepage of http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Duane Davis, Section Chief, FEMA,
Grant Programs Directorate,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. You
may contact the Information Management Division for copies of the
proposed collection of information at email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 2002, as amended (46 U.S.C. 70107), authorizes the PSGP
to provide for the risk-based allocation of funds to implement Area
Maritime Transportation Security Plans and facility security plans
among port authorities, facility operators, and State and local
government agencies required to provide port security services and to
train law enforcement personnel under 46 U.S.C. 70132. Before awarding
a grant under the program, the Secretary for Homeland Security shall
provide for review and comment by the appropriate Federal Maritime
Security Coordinators and the Maritime Administrator. In administering
the grant program, the Secretary shall consider national economic,
energy, and strategic defense concerns based upon the most current risk
assessments available.
    The PSGP is a Department of Homeland Security grant program that
focuses on infrastructure protection activities. The PSGP is one tool
in the comprehensive set of measures authorized by Congress and
implemented by the Administration to strengthen the Nation's critical
infrastructure against risks associated with potential terrorist
attacks. The bulk of U.S. critical infrastructure is owned and/or
operated by state, local and private sector partners. The PSGP provides
funds to state, local, and private sector partners to support increased
port-wide risk management and protect critical surface transportation
infrastructure from acts of terrorism, major disasters, and other
emergencies.
    FEMA is making two changes with this revision. First, FEMA is
removing the template for a Memorandum of Understanding (or Agreement)
from this collection because this informal template has not been
required in Fiscal Years 2022 or 2023. Second, FEMA is introducing an
extension request form to help reviewers understand the nature and
cause of performance delays, inform GPD of grant recipients who are
failing to meet policy and legislative grant requirements, and
streamline current processes.
    This proposed information collection previously published in the
Federal Register on September 6, 2023, at 88 FR 60964 with a 60-day
public comment period. No comments were received. The purpose of this
notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information
collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for
review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Port Security Grant Program
(PSGP).
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0114.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-207-FY-23-108 (formerly 089-05), PSGP
Investment Justification; FEMA Form FF-207-FY-23-109 (formerly 088-0-
1), Grant Programs Directorate Performance Report (GPD-PR), and FEMA
Form FF-207-FY-23-110, Grant Programs Directorate Extension Request
(GPD-Extension).
    Abstract: Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act
of 2002, as amended (46 U.S.C. 70107), authorizes the PSGP to provide
for the risk-based allocation of funds to implement Area Maritime
Transportation Security Plans and facility security plans among port
authorities, facility operators, and State and local government
agencies required to provide port security services and to train law
enforcement personnel under 46 U.S.C. 70132. Before awarding a grant
under the program, the Secretary for Homeland Security shall provide
for review and comment by the appropriate Federal Maritime Security
Coordinators and the Maritime Administrator. In administering the grant
program, the Secretary shall take into account national economic,
energy, and strategic defense concerns based upon the most current risk
assessments available.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government and Private
Sector.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 966.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 1,832.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 17,446.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $1,462,290.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $1,853,355.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the Agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility;
evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent Brown Wilson,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2023-25487 Filed 11-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-78-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 62)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17776-17778]
[DOCID:fr31mr11-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 510, 520, 522, 524, and 558

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0160]

Animal Drugs, Feeds, and Related Products; Withdrawal of Approval
of New Animal Drug Applications; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Cuprimyxin;
Diethylcarbamazine; Levamisole; Nitrofurazone; Phenylbutazone;
Pyrantel; Tylosin; Tylosin and Sulfamethazine

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations by removing those portions that reflect approval of 13
new animal drug applications (NADAs). In a notice published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is withdrawing approval of
these NADAs.

DATES: This rule is effective April 11, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Bartkowiak, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The sponsors of the 13 approved NADAs listed
in table 1 have requested that FDA withdraw approval because the
products are no longer manufactured or marketed.

                       Table 1--Voluntary Requests for Withdrawal of Approval of 13 NADAs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 NADA No. product          21 CFR section  affected (sponsor's
                 Sponsor                    (established name of drug)             drug  labeler code)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roche Vitamins, Inc., 45 Waterview Blvd.,  NADA 093-029, UNITOP Cream    524.520 (063238).
 Parsippany, NJ 07054-1298.                 (cuprimyxin).
Quali-Tech Products, Inc., 318 Lake        NADA 097-981, TYLAN 40 Sulfa- 558.630 (016968).
 Hazeltine Dr., Chaska, MN 55318.           G Premix (tylosin phosphate/
                                            sulfamethazine).
Abraxis Pharmaceutical Products, Division  NADA 100-840, Chorionic       522.1081 (063323).
 of Abraxis Bioscience, 6133 River Rd.,     Gonadotropin for Injection
 suite 500, Rosemont, IL 60018.             (chorionic gonadotropin).
Furst-McNess Co., Freeport, IL 61032.....  NADA 100-991, McNess Custom   558.625 (010439).
                                            Premix L200 (tylosin
                                            phosphate).
Fort Dodge Animal Health, Division of      NADA 101-079 TRAMISOL-10%     Not codified (000856).
 Wyeth Holdings, a wholly owned             Pig Wormer (levamisole).
 subsidiary of Pfizer, Inc., 235 East 42d
 St., New York, NY 10017.
Waterloo Mills Co., 2050 Mitchell Ave.,    NADA 101-905, Mill Co-        558.625 (017139).
 Waterloo, IA 50704.                        Medicator TY-10 (tylosin
                                            phosphate).
Waterloo Mills Co., 2050 Mitchell Ave.,    NADA 101-906, Mill Co-        558.630 (017139).
 Waterloo, IA 50704.                        Medicator TS-40 Premix
                                            (tylosin phosphate/
                                            sulfamethazine).
Pegasus Laboratories, Inc., 8809 Ely Rd.,  NADA 102-824,Phenylbutazone   520.1720a (055246).
 Pensacola, FL 32514.                       Tablets (phenylbutazone).
Wendt Laboratories, Inc., 100 Nancy Dr.,   NADA 108-487, DEC Tabs        520.622a (015579).
 Belle Plaine, MN 56011.                    (diethylcarbamazine
                                            citrate).
Wendt Laboratories, Inc., 100 Nancy Dr.,   NADA 108-863, DEC Chewable    520.622c (015579).
 Belle Plaine, MN 56011.                    Tabs (diethylcarbamazine
                                            citrate).
Furst-McNess Co., Freeport, IL 61032.....  NADA 140-820, TYLAN 40 Sulfa- 558.630 (010439).
                                            G Premix (tylosin phosphate/
                                            sulfamethazine).
Furst-McNess Co., Freeport, IL 61032.....  NADA 140-825, BANMINTH        558.485 (010439).
                                            Intermediate Premix
                                            (pyrantel tartrate).
Hess & Clark, Inc., 944 Nandino Blvd.,     NADA 140-910, NFZ Wound       524.1580c (050749).
 Lexington, KY 40511.                       Powder (nitrofurazone).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a notice published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, FDA gave notice that approval of NADAs 93-029, 97-981, 100-
840, 100-991, 101-079, 101-905, 101-906, 102-824, 108-487, 108-863,
140-820, 140-825, and 140-910, and all supplements and amendments
thereto, is withdrawn, effective April 11, 2011. As provided in the
regulatory text of this document, the animal drug regulations are
amended to reflect these withdrawals of approval and a current format.
    Following these changes of sponsorship, Abraxis Pharmaceutical
Products, Furst-McNess Co., Roche Vitamins, Inc., Waterloo Mills Co.,
and Wendt Laboratories, Inc., are no longer the sponsors of an approved
application. Accordingly, 21 CFR 510.600(c) is being amended to remove
the entries for these firms.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

21 CFR Parts 520, 522, and 524

    Animal drugs.

21 CFR Part 558

    Animal drugs, Animal feeds.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510,
520, 522, 524, and 558 are amended as follows:

PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.

Sec.  510.600  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1), remove the
entries for ``Abraxis Pharmaceutical Products'', ``Furst-McNess Co.'',
``Roche Vitamins, Inc.'', ``Waterloo Mills Co.'', and ``Wendt
Laboratories, Inc.''; and in the table in paragraph (c)(2), remove the
entries for ``010439'', ``015579'', ``017139'', ``063238'', and
``063323''.

PART 520--ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 520 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 360b.

0
4. In Sec.  520.622a, remove and reserve paragraph (a)(1); in paragraph
(a)(5), remove ``000081' and in its place add ``No. 000061''; and
revise paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  520.622a  Diethylcarbamazine citrate tablets.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Limitations. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on
the order of a licensed veterinarian.

0
5. In Sec.  520.622c, remove and reserve paragraph (b)(1); remove
reserved paragraph (b)(7); and revise paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec.  520.622c  Diethylcarbamazine citrate chewable tablets.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Limitations. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on
the order of a licensed veterinarian.

Sec.  520.1720a  [Amended]

0
6. In Sec.  520.1720a, remove and reserve paragraph (b)(4).

PART 522--IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
7. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 522 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 360b.

Sec.  522.1081  [Amended]

0
8. In paragraph (b)(2) of Sec.  522.1081, remove ``Nos. 058639 and
063323'' and in its place add ``No. 058639''.

PART 524--OPHTHALMIC AND TOPICAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
9. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 524 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b.

Sec.  524.520  [Removed]

0
10. Remove Sec.  524.520.

Sec.  524.1580c  [Amended]

0
11. In paragraph (b) of Sec.  524.1580c, remove ``Nos. 000010, 000069,
and 050749'' and in its place add ``Nos. 000010 and 000069''.

PART 558--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS

0
12. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.

Sec.  558.485  [Amended]

0
13. In Sec.  558.485, in paragraph (b)(3), remove ``010439''.

Sec.  558.625  [Amended]

0
14. In Sec.  558.625, remove and reserve paragraphs (b)(42) and
(b)(45).

Sec.  558.630  [Amended]

0
15. In Sec.  558.630, remove and reserve paragraph (b)(4); and in
paragraph (b)(5), remove ``010439,'' and ``016968,''.

    Dated: March 25, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-7560 Filed 3-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: February 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 7412-7413]
[DOCID:fr17fe09-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP09-54-000; PF08-9-000]

Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of Application

February 9, 2009.
    Take notice that on January 27, 2009, Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C. (Ruby)
Post Office Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, filed in the
above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's
regulations, for an order granting a certificate of public convenience
and necessity authorizing the construction and operation of a new
interstate natural gas pipeline system extending from Opal, Wyoming to
Malin, Oregon and blanket transportation and construction certificates
pursuant to Parts 284 and 157 of the Commission's regulations,
respectively, all as more fully set forth in the application which is
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing
is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room
or may 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 field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, Ruby proposes to construct and operate: (i) A new,
675.2 mile, 42-inch diameter pipeline extending westward from Opal,
Wyoming through the states of Utah and Nevada to a terminus at the
Malin Hub in Oregon; (ii) a 2.6 mile, 42-inch diameter lateral
extending from the Malin Hub to the Oregon/California border; (iii) the
69,000 horsepower Roberson Creek Compressor Station located in Lincoln
County, Wyoming; (iv) the 28,668 horsepower Wildcat Hills Compressor
Station located in Box Elder County, Utah; (v) the 39,662 horsepower
Wieland Flat Compressor Station located in Elko County, Nevada; (vi)
the 19,831 horsepower Desert Valley Compressor Station located in
Humboldt County, Nevada; and (vii) various receipt points located in
Lincoln County, Wyoming and various bi-directional delivery points
located in Humboldt County, Nevada and Klamath County, Oregon. Ruby's
proposed pipeline would be capable of transporting up to 1,500,000
MMBtu/d of natural gas from the Rocky Mountains to the Malin Hub. Ruby
estimates that the facilities will cost approximately $2.96 billion.
Ruby would provide open access firm and interruptible transportation on
the pipeline pursuant to its Pro Forma Tariff for which it seeks
approval.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to
Richard Derryberry, Director, Regulatory Affairs, Ruby Pipeline,
L.L.C., P.O. Box 1087,

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by fax at (719)
667-7534 or Craig V. Richardson, Vice President and General Counsel,
Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C., P.O. Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    On January 31, 2008, the Commission staff granted Ruby's request to
utilize the FERC Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF08-9-000
to staff activities involved in the Ruby Project. Now as of the filing
of Ruby's application on January 27, 2009, the Pre-Filing Process for
this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be
conducted in Docket No. CP09-54-000, as noted in the caption of this
Notice.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
complete the environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is 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>.
    Comment Date: March 2, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-3222 Filed 2-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 178)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55968-55970]
[DOCID:fr15se10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0518]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations, Sabine River; Orange, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary Special Local
Regulation in the Port Arthur Captain of the Port Zone on the Sabine
River, Orange, Texas. This Special Local Regulation is intended to
restrict vessels from portions of the Sabine River during the Thunder
on the Sabine boat races. This Special Local Regulation is necessary to
protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with
powerboat races.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on September 25, 2010, to 6
p.m. on September 26, 2010. This regulation will be enforced daily from
8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on September 25 and 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2010-0518 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0518 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Mr. Scott Whalen, Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur, TX,
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On July 15, 2010 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations; Sabine River, Orange, TX in
the Federal Register (75 FR 41119). We received no comments on the
proposed rule. No

public meetings were requested and none were held.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register because delaying its effective date
would be impracticable based on the dates the event is scheduled. This
rule is needed to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards
associated with powerboat races, which cannot practically be re-
scheduled. Additionally, notice of the Coast Guard's intent to create
this regulation was provided by the NPRM, published more than 60 days
before the scheduled event. The fact that no comments were received
supports the conclusion that this temporary special local regulation is
of minimal concern and will have minimal impact on the public.

Basis and Purpose

    This temporary special local regulation is necessary to ensure the
safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with a
powerboat race. The Captain of the Port has determined that powerboat
races in close proximity to watercraft and infrastructure pose
significant risk to public safety and property. The likely combination
of large numbers of recreation vessels, powerboats traveling at high
speeds, and large numbers of spectators in close proximity to the water
could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities. Establishing a
special local regulation around the location of the race course will
help ensure the safety of persons and property at these events and help
minimize the associated risks. This special local regulation will be
effective only for September 25th and 26th, 2010, and will be enforced
only between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on those days.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    No comments were received concerning this rule and the text of this
rule remains as published in 75 FR 41119.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The basis of this finding is
that the safety zone will only be in effect for 10 hours each day and
notifications to the marine community will be made through broadcast
notice to mariners and Marine Safety Information Bulletin. During non-
enforcement hours all vessels will be allowed to transit through the
safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur
or a designated representative. Additionally, scheduled breaks will be
provided to allow waiting vessels to transit safely through the
regulated area.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: (1)
This rule will only be enforced from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. each day that
it is effective; (2) during non-enforcement hours all vessels will be
allowed to transit through the safety zone without having to obtain
permission from the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur or a designated
representative; and (3) vessels will be allowed to pass through the
zone with permission of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander during
scheduled break periods between races and at other times when permitted
by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(h), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a
special local regulation. Based on our preliminary determination, there
are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical
exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe
that this rule should be categorically excluded from further
environmental analysis.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add a new temporary Sec.  100.T08-2010-0518 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T08-2010-0518  Safety Zone; Sabine River, Orange, TX.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section ``Participant Vessel''
means all vessels officially registered with event officials to race or
work in the event. These vessels include race boats, rescue boats, tow
boats, and picket boats associated with the race.
    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all waters of
the Sabine River, shoreline to shoreline, adjacent to the Naval Reserve
Unit and the Orange public boat ramps located in Orange, TX. The
northern boundary is from the end of Navy Pier One at 30[deg]05'45'' N
93[deg]43'24'' W then easterly to the rivers eastern shore. The
southern boundary is a line shoreline to shoreline at latitude
30[deg]05'33'' N.
    (c) Enforcement. This regulation will be enforced daily from 8 a.m.
until 6 p.m. on September 25 and 26, 2010.
    (d) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  100.35 of
this part, entry into this zone is prohibited to all vessels except
participant vessels and those vessels specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Port Arthur or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through must
request permission from the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, or a
designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF Channel 13 or
16, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, designated representatives and
designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel. On-scene U.S.
Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Dated: August 17, 2010.
Z.H. Pickett,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting, Captain of the Port, Port Arthur.
[FR Doc. 2010-22933 Filed 9-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


UNIlED STATES ENViRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (tl WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 Septetrber 18, 2002 PREfl PtSUOCEAND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Dr. Peter Voytck HAP Task Force Manager P. O. Box 331 Miliwood, VA 22646 RE: TCE ECA Modifications (OPPTS Docket # 42198C1 Dear Dr. Voytek:

I want to acknowledge the receipt ofthe HAP Task Force Tier I Program Review Testing reports entitled: "Phannacokinetics of 1,1 .2 Trichloroethane in Rats and Mice" and `Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model Development, Simulations, and Sensitivity Analysis for Repeated Exposure to 1.1 .2 Trichloroethane." Meeting this commitment under the TSCA Section 4 Enforceable Consent Agreement (LiCA) for 1,1,2 Trichioroethane (ICE) is clearly a commendable accomplishment for the HAP Task Force. In addition. I want to thank you for previewing the PKJMECH data and model development described in these reports during the technical consultation meeting held at the EPA laboratory ftcilities in RTP on August 13~ h~

Your presentations helped EPA scientists focus on important aspects ofthe findings described in these reports. EPA's receipt ofthese reports was announced in the Federal Register on April 10, 2002( 67 FR 17429); April 12, 2002( 67 FR 17996); and August 14.2002( 67 FR 53001).

This is also an important milestone for EPA within the TCE ECA process. The receipt of these reports triggers the EPA Program Review segment ofthe ICE ECA alternative testing program. The purpose ofthe EPA Program Review was outlined in Part VI. C. ofthe TCE ECA. As previously noted, the use of PKJMECH data to support quantitative mute to mute extrapolation is a new approach for EPA's Office ofPollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). Clearly. it is important that EPA apply the most sound scientific criteria in conducting this review and in reaching the pivotal decision regarding the application ofdata from these reports for the Tier II testing segment ofthe ECA. A description of'the possible outcomes ofthe EPA Program Review is provided in Part VII ofthe TCE ECA document.

R. cycIsdlR. cyclsbl. .Pitilsdwth V. gsis, I. CII Sned 1* 1w 0* 100% Scycled P~ nr( 40% Postconsuflhsv) FPA~ sability to perform the Program Review function is proving to he more resource intensive than originally anticipated. This is clue partially to the fact that this is the first instance in which an EPA determination is needed regarding the reliance on a model to develop data under a TSCA LCA. and also because there have been important policy changes at EPA since the ECA was put in place which directly impact science decisions. (i) f particular consideration is the impact of new peer review requirements on many aspects of EPA s science decision making. As a result, I now find that m Office is not only embarking on a Program Review of the science described in the ECA hut also a possible peer review of the Program Review decision called fhr under the [CA. This new aspect of the Program Review decision places additional emphasis on opportunities for public participation in the review process. for example, a Federal Register notice announcing the TEE Program Review will he published beibre the end of this month. Ihis notice solicits public comment on the fLAP Task Force Tier I Program Review reports. Comments received through this notice are expected to infbrm EPA's Program Review decision.

These changes, some of which have occurred since the TCE ECA was signed and were previously unforseen, add an element of uncertainty to the deadline schedule described in Table I of the ECA document. As a result the originally anticipated three (3) month time frame for EPA to complete the Program Review is no longer feasible. At this time it is not possible to predict how long the Program Review process may take hut we anticipate that it could he as long as eight (8) months from the date of this letter. \evertheless. I have asked all EPA reviewers and project staff' to make this a high priority and redouble their efforts to complete this Program Review activity as SOOfl as possible. I remain hopelltl that the time frame can he shortened by diligent eflbrts on the part of all those involved in the process. As a result of these unfbrseen elements which need to be incorporated into the Program Review process. EPA finds it necessary to modif the deadlines for the Tier II testing and route— to— route extrapolation reports. The niodihecl deadlines fbr these [CA deliverables ~viIt be based on when the EPA Program Review activity is completed and communicated to the I lAP Task Force.

EPA believes that moclitications to the test schedule as described in the attached Addendum to the TCF [CA are both necessary and minor and will not have an adverse effect on the results expected from the testing specified in the [CA. In addition. EPA believes that this modification is a minor change tbr which public comment is not required. Iherefore. by this letter. EPA is informing the I lAP Task Force that Table I of the ECA needs to he modified to provide additional dine fbi' the Agency to complete the Program Review activity. On completion of EPA's Program Review. EPA will inform the F lAP lask Force of the outcome and reset the deadlines fbr Tier II HAP Testing and Extrapolation Reporting as described in the enclosed Addendum to the [CA. Please sign and return the enclosed Addendum to the Enforceable Consent Agreement for 1,1,2 trichloroethane to me by September 30, 2002. This signed document will be submitted to the above referenced EPA Docket. Please call John Schaeffer (202 260 1266) or Richard Leukroth (202 260 0321) if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

/1 (~ c~ ~~~

Charles M. Auer Acting Director Chemical Control Division Enclosure cc: Docket OPPTS 42198C Francisca Liam (2225A) John Schaeffer (7405) Richard Leukroth (7405) ~ç~ o si~

,,~

Ui Addend urn Modifi cation to ENFORCEABLE CONSENT FOR 1,1 ,2 Trichloroethane (TCE) CAS No. 79 00 5 Docket No. OPPTS  42198C AGREEMENT September 15, 2002 This modification changes the reporting requirements described in lable I of the ICE [CA as follows:

Enforceable Consent Agreement for 1,1 ,2 Trichloroethane Modification Tier 11 HAP Testing Test Standard Final Report I) eadline from ~ Acute Neurotox! cit\ (Oral) 799 9~ 79( as annotated ~

Appendix D3) 36 months from the date of the [CA Order Acute ~eurotox ic 1k (Oral) 709.9620 (as annotated ir Appendix 03) months from notiOcation of EPA Pro ram Reviexs completion From ~ Fo Route to route extrapolation reporting of acute neurotoxicity ` Appendix C 39 months from the date of the [CA Order Route— to— route extrapolation reportino of acute neurotoxicity Appendix C 12 months ftorn notification of EPA Program Review completion From 1u Suhchronic Neurotoxicit~ (oral) § 799.9620 (as annotated ~ Appendix 1) 3) 42 months from the date of the [CA Order Suhchronic Neurotoxicity (oral) § 799.9620 (as annotated frt Appendix 1) 3) I 5 months from not~ ftcation of EPA Program Rex iew completion From lo Route— to— route extrapolation reporting of subchromc tieurOtoxicily Appendix C 45 months trom the date ot the [CA Order Route— to— route extrapolation reportino of suhchronic neurotoxicity Appendix C 1 8 months from notification of EPA Program Review completion From 1 0 Developmental fox iC] tV (°`~) x'~ 7999370 (as annotated n Appendix 1) 4) 48 months from the date of the [CA Order Developmental foxicitv (oral) § 7999370 (as antiotated in Appendix 1) 4) 21 months from notification of EPA Program Rex'iexx co nip let ion 1mm ~

lu Route to route extrapolation reporting of Ccx clopinental toxicit\ Append ix C 5 I months front (lie date of the [CA Order Route to route extrapolation Appenei\ C 24 months from tiotiheatioti reporting oldex elopmenntal of EPA Program Rex ie~ toxic Er completion 6 Enforceable Consent Agreement for 1,1,2 Trichforoethane continued Modification Tier ii HAP Testing I Test Standard Final Report l) eadtine From In Reproductive toxicit) (orah § 7999380 (as annotated in Appendix 05) 5—) months from thc date of the [( IA Order Reproductive toxic~ tv( oral) § 7999380 (as ant~ otatedin Appendix D5) 27 months froni notification of EPA Program Review completion From lo Route to route extrapolation reporting of reproductive toxicity Appendix C 57 trtonths from the date of the ECA Order Route— to— route extrapolation reporting of reproductive toxicity Appendix (1 30 months from tiotification of [PA Program Review completion From .

In Route to— route extrapolation reporting of extant tiimunotox~ citvdata Appendix C 33 months from the date of the [CA Order Route— to— route extrapol at ion reporting of extant innmnunotox icit~ data Appendix C 6 months from not ificat iou of [PA Program Reviex~ cotiip letion From Route to— route extrapolation repotting of extant carcinoeenicimv data 10 Route— to— route extrapolation reportitig of extant carcinogen icity data Appendix C 30 months from the date of the [CA Order Appendix C 3 months from notification of EPA Program Review completion We the undersigned agree these changes to the Enforceable Consent Agreement for I ,l ,2

Trichoroethane as descri bed in the table above:

7 ,`~

c~~~

Peter `voviek Date Charles M. Auer, Acting Di rector Date Chemical Cotitrol Division H,\ P Task Force Sponsor Representative