UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM						          December 5, 2006

SUBJECT:	HED Response to Comments Submitted to the Agency Concerning the
Triadimefon Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) and the
Triadimenol Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision (TRED).

			Triadimefon Docket ID Number:  EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0258

			Triadimenol Docket ID Number:  EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0038

			DP Barcodes:		           333573, 333685

FROM:	Richard Griffin, Risk Assessor

		Reregistration Branch II

Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	Alan Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist

		Reregistration Branch II

Health Effects Division (7509P), and

William Hazel, Chief

Reregistration Branch II

Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		John Pates, Jr., Chemical Review Manager

		Reregistration Branch I

		Special Review and Reregistration Division  (7508P)

In the August 30, 2006 Federal Register, the EPA published (as one
document) the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for triadimefon
and the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision (TRED) for
triadimenol.  Following closure of the comment period on October 30,
2006 the primary registrant (and data provider) for both chemicals,
Bayer CropScience, sent a letter to the Agency with comments to the
decision document.  The following memo is the Health Effects
Division’s response to Bayer’s comments.

Bayer Comment

Referring to Page 5, Section II.B.2 of the Decision Document, Bayer
comments that the published structure for triadimenol is not correct.

HED Response

HED concurs with Bayer’s comment that the published structure is not
correct.  The triadimefon/triadimenol Decision Document should be
amended to show the correct triadimenol structure.  HED suggests SRRD
refer to the structure in Bayer’s comment letter, or refer to the HED
Residue Chemistry Chapter for triadimenol (S. Ary. 11/17/05. D314891).

Bayer Comment

Referring to Page 11, Section III.A.I of the Decision Document, Bayer
quotes the Decision memo’s discussion of the Agency’s requirement
for acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies for triadimenol, and the
requirement of a DNT study based on the results of the acute and
subchronic studies.  Bayer also refers to the 6/20/2006 HED memo that
states the opposite, that the Agency would not require acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity studies for triadimenol.

HED Response

HED concurs with Bayer that a conclusion had been made that the
triadimefon neurotoxicity studies are adequate to assess triadimenol.
The Triadimefon/Triadimenol Decision Document should be amended to
remove the stated requirement for additional triadimenol neurotoxicity
studies.  (Note that a triadimefon DNT study remains a data
requirement).

Bayer Comment

Referring to Page 19, Section III.A.4b, Table 7, of the Decision
Document, Bayer notes the Agency’s estimated concentrations of
triadimefon and triadimenol in drinking water reflect three applications
and not the agreed upon 2 applications.  The Estimated Environmental
Concentration (EEC) numbers presented in Table 7 of the Decision
Document are 100.8 ppb (acute), 24.94 ppb (annual mean), and 4.07 ppb
(overall mean), and not the corrected (for 2 applications) 93.4 ppb,
19.6 ppb, and 9.0 ppb (respectively).

HED Response

HED concurs with Bayer that the EEC estimates presented in Table 7 are
not the corrected estimates, and would like to confirm as suggested by
Bayer that the correct estimates were, in fact, used for the risk
assessment.  The Triadimefon/Triadimenol Decision Document should be
amended to show the correct concentrations.

Bayer Comment

Referring to Page 19, Section III.A.4b, (Dietary Exposure from Drinking
Water, Groundwater Exposure) of the Decision Document, Bayer notes the
assertion (by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division) that the
potential for groundwater based triadimefon contamination may be greater
than originally supposed.  This assertion is based on the results of a
ground water monitoring study that showed a peak concentration of 25
ppb, compared to the Agency’s model for ground water concentrations
(SciGrow) showing an estimate of 5 ppb.  Bayer also comments that the
correct concentration is 6.6 ppb (0.2 ppb triadimefon and 6.4 ppb
triadimenol) and notes that residues quickly dissipate in the
environment, resulting in actual EEC’s at a lower level than
predicted.

HED Response

HED will defer to the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) to
determine the correct concentrations for ground water, and notes that
the HED dietary and aggregate risk assessment relied only on surface
water concentration estimates (since they are higher).

Bayer Comment

Referring to Page 38, Section III.A.10, (Human Incident Data,
Conclusion) of the Decision Document,  Bayer objects to the conclusions
drawn by HED in regard to worker reactions to triadimefon exposure.
Referencing both California and Poison Control Center data, HED made the
statement that irritation to skin, eyes, and respiratory passages occur
“readily” among unprotected handlers, or others having substantial
contact.  Citing other human incident databases (PCC, IDS, CDPR, NPIC,
and NIOSH SENSOR, Bayer asserts that the rate of irritation occurrence
in workers is very low, and triadimefon use has been safe for over
twenty years.

HED Response

HED can concur with Bayer that, overall, the use of triadimefon appears
to be relatively safe, when all human incident databases are
collectively used for assessment.  However, it is also apparent that
exposure to triadimefon can result in irritation to the skin, eyes, and
respiratory passages in humans, as predicted in the acute studies in
test animals.

Bayer Comment

Referring to Page 66, Section V.C., (Data Requirements for Triadimenol,
Toxicology) of the Decision Document, Bayer notes that acute and
subchronic neurotoxicity studies are listed as data requirements.

HED Response

HED concurs with Bayer that previous HED documents had concluded that
the existing triadimefon neurotoxicity studies are adequate to assess
triadimenol.  As discussed under Bayer comment 2 (above) HED recommends
that the Triadimefon/ Triadimenol Decision Document be amended to
clarify that acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are not
currently required.  (Note that a triadimefon DNT study remains a data
requirement).

Bayer Comment

Referring to Page 66, Section V.C., (Data Requirements for Triadimenol)
of the Decision Document,  Bayer cites the Agency requirement for
“separate metabolism studies with triazole-14C and phenyl-14C labeled
triadimenol applied as a seed treatment to wheat and corn.”  On April
25, 2006 Bayer submitted four triadimenol plant metabolism studies (EPA
MRIDs 46826001–46826004).  With the submission of these studies Bayer
asserts that the metabolism of triadimenol is adequately defined and
asks for a waiver of the requirement for additional metabolism studies
with wheat, corn, or cotton.  Also, referencing a 3/16/06 e-mail from
the Agency (J. Pates to M. Tolliver), Bayer requests further
clarification of the required data, if the waiver is not granted by the
Agency.

HED Response

Triadimefon readily metabolizes to its primary metabolite, triadimenol,
and it is apparent that most pesticidal and toxicological activity is
attributable to triadimenol.  For this reason, some of the data
requirements for triadimenol (notably toxicological data) have been
adequately addressed by a translation of triadimefon data for the
purposes of risk assessment.  However, in the case of residue chemistry
data (data that support tolerance setting for food uses and residue
levels for dietary risk assessment), a translation of data from
triadimefon field trials is not adequate due to the very different types
of application (foliar vs. seed treatment).

The residue chemistry data for triadimefon is based primarily on field
trial data for apples, grapes, pears, raspberries, and pineapple (food
uses that are now subject to cancellation, except pineapple).  In field
trials for these commodities triadimefon was applied to the foliage to
control rust and mildew diseases.  Triadimefon data does not readily
translate to triadimenol, since triadimenol is applied to seeds, in
advance of planting.

At this time, HED has not reviewed the plant metabolism studies listed
above, and on that basis cannot make a judgement as to whether the
submitted data is adequate.

 PAGE

 PAGE   4


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 98 (Monday, May 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27938-27940]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10843]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91922; File No. SR-ICC-2021-014]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
ICC's Fee Schedules

May 18, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 7, 2021, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared
primarily by ICC. ICC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
such that the

proposed rule change was immediately effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to modify
ICC's fee schedules to introduce credit default index swaption (``Index
Option'') incentive programs for the second half of 2021. These
revisions do not require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules.

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change,
security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any
comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap
submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be
examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most
significant aspects of these statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    The proposed changes are intended to modify ICC's fee schedules to
introduce Index Option incentive programs for the second half of
2021.\5\ ICC maintains a Clearing Participant (``CP'') fee schedule \6\
and client fee schedule \7\ (collectively, the ``fee schedules'') that
are publicly available on its website, which ICC proposes to update in
connection with the proposed incentive programs. Currently, clearing
fees are due by CPs and clients in accordance with the product, amount
and currency set out in the fee schedules and subject to any incentive
programs described in the fee schedules. ICC proposes to amend the fee
schedules to include details on the proposed incentive programs for the
second half of 2021, subject to any regulatory review or approval
process. The proposed changes are described in detail as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Pursuant to an Index Option, one party (the ``Swaption
Buyer'') has the right (but not the obligation) to cause the other
party (the ``Swaption Seller'') to enter into an index credit
default swap transaction at a pre-determined strike price on a
specified expiration date on specified terms. In the case of Index
Options that may be cleared by ICC, the underlying index credit
default swap is limited to certain CDX and iTraxx index credit
default swaps that are accepted for clearing by ICC, and which would
be automatically cleared by ICC upon exercise of the Index Option by
the Swaption Buyer in accordance with its terms.
    \6\ CP fee details available at: https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_credit/ICE_Clear_Credit_Fees_Clearing_Participant.pdf.
    \7\ Client fee details available at: https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/clear_credit/ICE_Clear_Credit_Fees.pdf. As specified, all
fees are charged directly to a client's CP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the amended CP fee schedule, the proposed 2H 2021 Standard
Program automatically, and without further action by CPs, applies to
CPs and provides a 25% discount, such that Index Option fees are $2.25/
million or [euro]2.25/million, from June 1 through December 31, 2021.
As an alternative, CPs may elect to participate in the 2H 2021 Prepaid
Program from June 1 through December 31, 2021. Participation requires a
non-refundable upfront payment of $300,000 by June 25, 2021. Index
Option fees are $1.5/million or [euro]1.5/million and the upfront
payment is applied toward the first $300,000 of option clearing fees
due in the second half of 2021.
    The amended client fee schedule offers the 2H 2021 Index Option
Incentive Program, which is similar to the 2H 2021 Standard Program
described above. This program automatically, and without further action
by CPs or clients, applies to clients and provides a 25% discount, such
that Index Option fees are $3/million or [euro]3/million, from June 1
through December 31, 2021. The discount or prepaid fee schedule would
be applied at the time of invoice under both amended fee schedules.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Act, including Section 17A of the Act \8\ and the
regulations thereunder applicable to it. More specifically, the
proposed rule change establishes or changes a member due, fee or other
charge imposed by ICC under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \9\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \10\ thereunder. ICC believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular, to Section
17A(b)(3)(D),\11\ which requires that the rules of the clearing agency
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICC believes that the proposed discounts in the fee schedules have
been set at an appropriate level. In determining the appropriate
discount level and program structure, ICC took into account factors
such as volume, revenue, costs and expenses, and market participation
in the clearing service, including based on different fee levels. In
ICC's view, the fees are reasonable under each proposed incentive
program as the discounts correspond with anticipated volumes, costs and
expenses, and revenues under each program, and they consider current
and past market activity as well as anticipated market activity with
respect to clearing Index Options at ICC.\12\ Client fees remain higher
than CP fees for Index Options under the proposed programs, which is in
line with the current fee schedules for single names, indexes, and
Index Options, given the responsibilities and obligations of CPs to ICC
as opposed to clients. Furthermore, the discount for the proposed 2H
2021 Prepaid Program in the CP fee schedule is associated with the non-
refundable upfront payment applied toward clearing fees. These
incentive programs are designed to encourage the clearing of Index
Options by CPs and clients while properly compensating ICC for the
risks, costs and expenses of clearing Index Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Supporting detail and additional data, including clearing
statistics for Index Options and a presentation provided to the
Board in respect of the proposed incentive programs is included in
confidential Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the proposed fee changes will apply equally to all market
participants clearing Index Options. The 2H 2021 Standard Program under
the amended CP fee schedule automatically, and without further action
by CPs, applies to all CPs. As an alternative, any CP may elect to
participate in the 2H 2021 Prepaid Program, which requires an upfront
payment by a specified date. The 2H 2021 Index Option Incentive Program
under the amended client fee schedule automatically, and without
further action by CPs or clients, applies to all clients. ICC's fee
schedules, including the proposed incentive programs, will continue to
be transparent and to apply equally to market participants clearing
indexes, single names, and Index Options at ICC. Therefore, the
proposed rule change provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among participants, within the
meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.\13\ ICC

therefore believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \14\ and the regulations
thereunder applicable to it and is appropriately filed pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
\16\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. As discussed
above, the proposed changes modify ICC's CP and client fee schedules to
introduce incentive programs for Index Options for the second half of
2021 and will apply uniformly across all market participants. The
implementation of such changes does not preclude other market
participants from offering similar incentive programs. Moreover, ICC
does not believe that the amendments would adversely affect the ability
of market participants to access clearing services. Accordingly, ICC
does not believe the amendments impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \18\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2021-014 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

    Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2021-014. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE
Clear Credit's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation. All comments received will be posted without change.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2021-014 and should be
submitted on or before June 14, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-10843 Filed 5-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

05/01/2008 10:37 AM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Jason Burnett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David Orlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike Clark/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nicole Owens/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Erika Sasser/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Fw: compare file through the end of the adequacy section of the lead NAAQS

Heidi, and everyone,

Here is a redline version of the lead NAAQS package through page 182 comparing the April 29 version to this new version.  As far as we know we have made all the changes requested, except for the LRRP footnote, as we continue to believe the footnote as written is correct.  I believe Heidi is trying to schedule time for us to all talk with OPPTS this morning.  We anticipate sending the remainder of the preamble within about a half-hour, with the rule text to follow after that.

-----Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/01/2008 10:31AM -----

To: Wegman Lydia@EPA

From: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US

Date: 05/01/2008 10:30AM

cc: Murphy Deirdre@EPA

Subject: compare file through the end of the adequacy section

Karen Martin, Ph.D.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. EPA (C504-06)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


	SDDC OPERATIONS CENTER

	CARRIER ADVISORY

	May 10, 2006

	CAR-06-05/10-0052

Subject:  Update to Carrier Advisory CAR-06-02/22-0029 dated 2 Feb 2006 and CAR-06-02/24-0020 dated 24 Feb 2006, Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) Safety Administration (PHMSA0 Revised-Shipment of Certain Detonators by DOT Special Permit (DOT-SP) 14282.

Purpose:  To provide guidance regarding the transportation of certain detonators and detonator assemblies by special permit and correct special provisions information regarding the transportation of these detonators.  NOTE: DOT-Exemption (DOT-E) was replaced by the term DOT-SP.

Be Advised:  IAW Title 49 CFR, Section 177.835(g), prohibits transportation of detonators on the same motor vehicle with any Division 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 material (except other detonators, detonator assemblies, or boosters with detonators), detonating cord Division 1.4 material, or Division 1.5 material unless the conditions specified in Section 177.835(g) (1), (2) or (3) are met.

Guidance:  Recently, the Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, has issued DOT-SP 14282, an emergency special permit that authorizes the transportation in commerce of certain detonators and detonator assemblies on the same motor vehicle with any other Class 1 explosives when they are in separate and isolated cargo-carrying compartments powered by the same tractor.  This emergency special permit is based on the application of Dyno Nobel Transportation, Inc. dated 11 October 2005 and submitted IAW Part 107.117.  DOT determined that it was necessary to issue this SP to prevent significant economic loss.

a. This DOT-SP was issued to authorize the transportation of certain detonators and detonator assemblies on the same motor vehicle with any other Class 1 explosives.  This DOT-SP consists of an authorization letter issued to the grantee together with the document.

The following detonators can be shipped with Class 1 explosives if properly packaged:

Detonator assemblies, non-electric for blasting, 1.1B, UN0360, PG II

Detonator assemblies, non-electric for blasting, 1.4B, UN0361, PG II

Detonator, assemblies, non-electric for blasting, 1.4S, UN0500, PG II

Detonators, electric for blasting, 1.1B, UN0030, PG II

Detonators, electric for blasting, 1.4B, UN0255, PG II

Detonators, electric for blasting, 1.4S, UN0456, PG II

Detonators, non-electric for blasting, 1.1B, UN0029, PG II

Detonators, non-electric for blasting, 1.4B, UN0267, PG II

Detonators, non-electric for blasting, 1.4S, UN0455, PG II

b. The following safety control measures must be followed:

     1.  All detonators and detonator assemblies must be packaged in full, closed cases according to any special packaging instructions given in their approvals.

     2.  When no instructions are given, they must be packaged according to Packaging Instruction 131 in the Part 173.62 (c).

c. Detonators transported under this special permit must meet the following requirements:

     1.  When Class 1 explosives other than detonators or detonator assemblies are transported in a cargo van trailer attached to a motorized tractor unit, the detonators and /or assemblies must be isolated from them in a rugged, crush-resistant locked and sealed metal or reinforced fiberglass cargo-carrying compartment (a.k.a. dromedary box) located immediately behind the cab of the tractor unit.

     2.  When Class 1 explosives other than detonators or detonator assemblies are transported in an integrated (a.k.a. straight) truck cargo compartment, the detonators and/or detonator assemblies must be isolated from the Class 1 material in a rugged, crush-resistant locked and sealed metal or reinforced fiberglass cargo-carrying compartment (a.k.a. dromedary box) securely affixed to a towed trailer or van-type trailer attached by a fifth-wheel, or other standard securing system.

      3.  No Division 1.1A explosives may be contained in any compartment of the motor vehicle.

d. The following special provisions also apply to commercial carrier conveyances and DOD government-owned and organic conveyances:

     1.  A current copy of the special permit must be maintained at each facility where the package is offered for transportation;

      2.  The tractor compartment or trailer containing the detonators and detonator assemblies  must be legibly and durably marked with “DOT-SP 14282” in lettering at least two inches in height; and

     3. A current copy of the special permit must be carried aboard each motor vehicle used to transport packages covered by this DOT special permit.

Policy:

a. The Department of Defense has been approved and is listed as party-to SP-14282.

The enclosed SP-14282 and the authorization letter applies to DOD military, civilian, and contractor personnel transporting referenced listed explosives in government-owned or organic conveyances.

b. DOD AA&E commercial carrier’ wishing to participate must become party to this exemption IAW Part 107.109 and must have DOT individual authorization letter attached to the DOD BL.  Shipper must ensure that carriers provide separate approved letter issued by DOT that they have been approved and listed by carrier name as party-to status.

c. DOD shippers must ensure that DOD AA&E commercial carriers and DOD government-owned or organic conveyances utilizing the provisions of this exemption be inspected IAW DOD 4500.9-R, Part II, Chapter 204 and notate on the DD Form 626 (Vehicle Inspection).  A current copy of this special permit must be maintained at each DOD facility where the package is offered or reoffered for transportation.

d. Explosives items listed in the “Guidance” paragraph above may be shipped under terms of this special permit.

Copies of this DOT special permit may be obtained by accessing the Hazardous Materials Safety Homepage at:  http://hazmat.dot.gov/sp_app/special_permits/docs/14000/SP14282.pdf

POC:  Mr. C.E. Radford<PHONE_NUMBER>, Mr. Joseph Dugan<PHONE_NUMBER> or Ms. Dora Elias<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Expiration:	N/A


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 45633]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16412]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL20-58-000]

American Electric Power Service Corporation; Notice of Petition
for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on July 22, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2019), American Electric
Power Service Corporation (AEP or Petitioner) on behalf of its
affiliate, Kentucky Power Company (KPCo, and with other affiliates
discussed herein, AEP), hereby submits a petition for declaratory order
(Petition) seeking confirmation that the Middle Creek energy storage
project, a transmission asset that has undergone full review through
the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. stakeholder process, is eligible for
cost-of-service recovery through AEP's Commission-approved transmission
formula rates, and specifically through the transmission accounts
designated for such projects in Order No. 784,\1\ as more fully
explained in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Third-Party Provision of Ancillary Services; Accounting and
Financial Reporting for New Elec. Storage Techs., Order No. 784,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,349, PP 122-41 (2013), order on
clarification, Order No. 784-A, 146 FERC ] 61,114 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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 may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on August 21, 2020.

    Dated: July 23, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16412 Filed 7-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42245]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13887]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0424]

Safety Zone; Annual Fireworks Displays and Other Events in the
Eighth Coast Guard District Requiring Safety Zones--Madisonville Old
Fashioned 4th of July

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the
Madisonville Old Fashioned 4th of July fireworks display located on the
navigable waters of the Tchefuncte River, in front of the Madisonville
Town Hall. Our regulation for marine events within the Eighth Coast
Guard District Sector New Orleans Annual and Recurring Safety Zones
identifies the regulated area for this event. This action is necessary
to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waterways during
the event. During the enforcement period, entry into this safety zone
into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port or a designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, will be enforced for the
location identified in Item 15 of Table 5 to Sec.  165.801, from 8 p.m.
through 9 p.m. on July 4, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notification of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Commander William
Stewart, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 5 to Sec.  165.801, item 15 for the
Madisonville Old Fashioned 4th of July fireworks display event. This
safety will be enforced from 8 p.m. through 9 p.m. on July 4, 2023.
This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for annual
fireworks displays and other events in Sector New Orleans Annual and
Recurring Safety Zones in Sec.  165.801, Table 5 to Sec.  165.801, Item
15, specifies the approximate location of the regulated area on the
Tchefuncte River, in front of the Madisonville Town Hall. During the
enforcement period, as reflected in Sec.  165.801(a), entry into this
safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
or a designated representative.
    In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this
enforcement period via Marine Safety Information Bulletin and Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: June 24, 2023.
K.K. Denning,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2023-13887 Filed 6-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65058-65059]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23375]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0640; FRL-10380-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Engine Test Cells/Stands
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Engine Test Cells/
Stands (EPA ICR Number 2066.10, OMB Control Number 2060-0483), to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through February 28,
2025. Public comments were previously requested, via the Federal
Register, on February 8, 2021 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before November 28,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-0640, to EPA online using https://www.regulations.gov/ (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.

    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
https://www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Engine Test Cells/Stands (40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPP) apply to any existing, new, or reconstructed engine test
cells/stands located at major source facilities that are used for
testing internal combustion engines. Owners and operators of engine
test cells/stands are required to comply with reporting and record
keeping requirements for the general provisions of 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A, as well as the applicable specific standards in 40 CFR part
63 Subpart PPPPP. In general, all NESHAP standards require initial
notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/
operators of the affected facilities. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance with 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPP and must be maintained for at least 5 years from the date
on which it was generated.
    Form Numbers: 5900-523.
    Respondents/affected entities: Engine test cells/stands.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPPPP).
    Estimated number of respondents: 8 (total).
    Frequency of response: Semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 830 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $101,000 (per year), which includes $2,400 in
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is a decrease in burden from the
most-recently approved ICR as currently identified in the OMB Inventory
of Approved Burdens. The regulations were previously amended in a Risk
and Technology Review (RTR) on June 3, 2020 at 85 FR 34326. The change
in the burden and cost estimates in this ICR occurred because the
revised standard has been in effect for 1.5 years and the requirements
are different during initial compliance (new facilities) as compared to
on-going compliance (existing facilities). The previous ICR (2066.09)
reflected those burdens and costs associated with the initial
activities for those facilities subject to the June 3, 2020 final rule.
This ICR (2066.10) reflects the ongoing burden and costs for existing
facilities. The final rule amendments eliminated the SSM exemption,
removed the SSM plan and SSM recordkeeping requirements, and required
electronic submittal of performance test results. This ICR adjusts the
burden, following the June 3, 2020 final rule, to reflect the current
number of entities anticipated to be subject to the rule, and assumes
the one new source identified in the RTR has already complied with the
initial notification and testing requirements, resulting in a decrease
in the capital/startup costs. This ICR retains the assumption in the
final rule ICR that two new sources will submit an initial notification
over the next three years, but will not be subject to emission limits,
performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. No new
sources that would be subject to the emission limits, performance
testing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements are anticipated
during the three-year period of this ICR.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-23375 Filed 10-26-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6746-6747]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-0246]

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for
Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Vaccines and Related
Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC). The general function
of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA on
regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is
establishing a docket for public comment on this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held virtually on February 28, 2023, from
8:30 a.m. to 5:10 p.m. Eastern Time and on March 1, 2023, from 9 a.m.
to 3:50 p.m. Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: Please note that due to the impact of this COVID-19
pandemic, all meeting participants will be joining this advisory
committee meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. The online
web conference meeting will be available at the following links: on
February 28, 2023, at: https://youtu.be/ffmIyeXNOfk; on March 1, 2023,
at: https://youtu.be/sPbrzgkny3w.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2023-N-0246. The docket will close on February
27, 2023. Either electronic or written comments on this public meeting
must be submitted by February 27, 2023. Please note that late, untimely
filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov
electronic filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern
Time at the end of February 27, 2023. Comments received by mail/hand
delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered
timely if they are received on or before that date.
    Comments received on or before February 20, 2023, will be provided
to the committee. Comments received after February 20, 2023, and by
February 27, 2023, will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the
event that the meeting is canceled, FDA will continue to evaluate any
relevant applications or information, and consider any comments
submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2023-N-0246 for ``Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory
Committee (VRBPAC); Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public

Docket; Request for Comments.'' Received comments, those filed in a
timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify the information as ``confidential.'' Any
information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sussan Paydar or Prabhakara Atreya,
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Silver Spring, MD
20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]; or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last
minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory
committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide
timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the FDA's website at
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to
the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory
committee information line to learn about possible modifications before
coming to the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned,
and recorded through an online teleconferencing platform. On February
28, 2023, under Topic 1, the committee will meet in open session to
discuss and make recommendations on the safety and effectiveness of
ABRYSVO (Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine), manufactured by Pfizer
Inc., with a requested indication, in Biologics License Application
(BLA) 125769 (STN 125769/0), for active immunization for the prevention
of acute respiratory disease and lower respiratory tract disease (LRTD)
caused by respiratory syncytial virus in adults 60 years of age and
older. On March 1, 2023, under Topic 2, the committee will meet in open
session to discuss and make recommendations on the safety and
effectiveness of AREXVY (Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine,
Recombinant, Adjuvanted), manufactured by GSK, with a requested
indication, in BLA 125775 (STN 125775/0), for active immunization for
the prevention of LRTD caused by respiratory syncytial virus RSV-A and
RSV-B subtypes in adults 60 years of age and older.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the time of the
advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted
on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is available at
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll
down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link. The meeting
will include slide presentations with audio components to allow the
presentation of materials in a manner that most closely resembles an
in-person advisory committee meeting.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Dockets (see
ADDRESSES) on or before February 20, 2023, will be provided to the
committee. Comments received after February 20, 2023, and by February
27, 2023, will be taken into consideration by FDA. Oral presentations
from the public will be scheduled approximately between 1:10 p.m. and
2:10 p.m. Eastern Time on February 28, 2023, and approximately between
12:30 and 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time on March 1, 2023. Those individuals
interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, along with their names,
email addresses, and direct contact phone numbers of proposed
participants, on or before 12 p.m. Eastern Time on February 15, 2023.
Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by 6 p.m. Eastern Time on
February 22, 2023.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Sussan Paydar or Prabhakara Atreya (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: January 27, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-02096 Filed 1-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Each point source shall include together with the AWLA the following:

( 1) Evidence that the project has complied with the provisions of Article 4 C, Law No. 9 of June 18, 1970, Environmental Public Policy Act, as amended, if the application is related to a new or modified discharge.

( 2) Diagram showing the existing and future discharges.

10.3 Conditions for Waste Load Allocations ( A) Need for Allocation Whenever a segment of a water body is not meeting or may not meet the water quality standards after the implementation of technology based effluent limitations, the Board shall determine the total maximum daily load ( TMDL) and shall allocated the waste assimilative capacity of the receiving waters among particular discharges in accordance with the Waste Load Allocation Guidelines ( WLAG) and the procedure prescribed in this Regulation. The control requirements in such cases will be determined based on the waste load allocation process ( WLA based effluent limitations).

( B) Minimum Treatment Required No allocation shall be performed to any point source that does not meet the requirements of Section 301( b) of the Clean Water Act.

( C) Not a property right Allocations will not be transferable and do not convey any property rights of any sort or any exclusive privileges, nor do they authorize any injury to persons or property or invasion of other private rights, or any infringement of Federal or State laws or regulations.

( D) pH No allocation shall be performed to any point source that does not meet the applicable pH water quality standard at the point of discharge.

( E) Design Flows ( 1) Receiving Water bodies Design Flow For the purpose of determining the waste assimilative capacity of a water body the following design minimum flows will be used:

a. For a free flowing stream, the low flow of seven ( 7) day in two ( 2)

year( 7Q2).

b. Where the quantity of flow is altered by human induced activities or work,

and such alteration results in flow variations significantly different from natural patterns of variations, the Board may establish a design flow in a case by case basis, to reflect the effects of such flow variations.

c. In the cases of lakes, reservoirs and estuarine waters, the Board will determine the characteristics upon which to establish waste load requirements with respect to the particular characteristics of the receiving water body. ( 2) Discharges Design Flow The discharge design flow shall be the wastewater treatment plant's design flow or the 24 hours maximum discharge flow whichever is greater. In those cases where the treatment plant capacity is significantly larger than the maximum flow of the discharge in twenty four ( 24) hours, the Board, upon request of the interested party,

may perform the WLA using the maximum flow in twenty four ( 24) hours, when demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board that such flow is adequate. In those cases, the interested party should submit a petition to the Board requesting that the WLA be performed with the maximum flow of the discharge in twenty four ( 24)

hours. If the petition is approved by this Board, the WLA will be performed in accordance with said petition and taking into consideration the increase in flow during the effective period of the WLA.

( F) Total Maximum Daily Load The total maximum daily load ( TMDL) is the total allowable pollutant load ( i. e. the sum of the individual point sources, the individual existing or future nonpoint sources, the natural background sources and the reserve) to a receiving water body such that any additional loading will produce a violation of the water quality standards.

( G) Sum of the Load Allocation The sum of the load allocation ( LA) is equal to the natural background sources of pollution plus the sum of the individual nonpoint sources.

( H) Maximum Daily Load Allowable The maximum daily load allowable ( MDLA) is the maximum load t h a t c a n b e allocated among the point sources without causing a violation to the water quality standard.

The MDLA of a substance x is equal to the TMDL of the substance x minus the sum of the load allocation of the substance x.

( I) Reserves In each segment, as part of the initial allocation, a reserve of 25% the MDLA of each pollutant shall be set by the Board, except when it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board that existing conditions merit a reserve of less than 25%. In such cases, a written request shall be submitted to the Board by the interested party, indicating the reasons for which a reserve less than 25% is necessary. If the request is approved by Board, the WLA shall be performed in accordance with such request.

The reserve in each segment shall be utilized to allow for economic development and population growth which may occur subsequent to the initial allocation, or any reallocation, when approved by the Board. The priority to utilize the reserve shall be directed towards the governmental infrastructure necessary to allow for said economic development and population growth.

( b) Particular allocations or portions of allocations which are no longer needed or used by the source or facility to which they were assigned shall be revert to the reserve.

10.4 Determination of the substances for which the WLA shall be performed.

Whenever the Board determines that allocation of a water body's assimilative capacity is necessary in a segment, the Board shall perform the WLA for substances that may deplete the level of dissolved oxygen and for each substance that does not meet the applicable water quality standard at the discharge point after technology based requirements are met. In addition, WLAs may be performed for other substances that have the potential to cause violations of any applicable water quality standard in the receiving water body.

10.5 Dissolved Oxygen ( DO) WLA The DO in water bodies is affected by the BOD and the NH3. Therefore the Board will perform WLA analysis in accordance with Chapter 6, Section II of the Waste Load Allocation Guidelines.

10.6 Allocations The Board shall allocate the allowable loads among the different point sources in such a manner that compliance with all applicable water quality standards is achieved. The allowable loads shall be allocated among the different point sources as follows:

( 1) The Board shall identify all the point sources for which the W L A s h a l l b e performed.

( 2) The Board shall request from each point source for which a WLA shall be assigned to complete an Application for Waste Load Allocation ( AWLA) within sixty ( 60) days after receiving EQB's notification.

( 3) If any point source fails to submit the AWLA in the specified time period and fails to submit a request of time extension to submit the AWLA, such point source shall comply with all applicable water quality standards at the discharge point.

( 4) The Board, using the information provided in the AWLA and any other data obtained from EPA/ EQB data based or other sources and assuming that all the substances, except the ones that may deplete the dissolved oxygen, are conservative, shall determine:

a. the substances for which the WLA shall be performed.

b. the TMDL, LA, MDLA, R, WLA and EAC for each substances for which the WLA shall be performed.

( 5) If for any substance the background concentration is greater than the applicable water quality standards, then the maximum allowable effluent concentration ( MAEC) shall be equal to the water quality standard for all discharges.

( 6) If for any substances the EAC is less than the applicable water quality standard, then the MAEC shall be equal to the water quality standard for each discharge, except for dissolved oxygen for which the Board shall perform the WLA as specified on Section 10.5 of this Article.

( 7) If for a given discharge, the EAC is greater than the maximum requested discharge concentration ( MRDC), the MAEC for that given discharge shal l be equal to MRDC.

( 8) If for all discharges the EAC of a given substance is less than the MRDC, then the MAEC of that given substance shall be equal to the EAC.

( 9) If for one or more discharges the MRDC of a given substance is less than the EAC of that substance, and one or more discharges have the MRDC of such substance greater than the EAC, the EAC may be recalculated as follows: 0.75 ( WQSx QT  CBGx 7Q2)  ( CLTEx QLTE) EACrx= _____________________________________________ QUAps where: EACrx = the recalculated equitable allowable concentration of a substance x for the discharges with MRDC greater than the EAC of the substance x.

WQSx = water quality standard of substance x.

QT = total flow of all discharges.

CBGx = background concentration of substance x.

CLTEx = concentration of a substance x less than the EAC.

QLTEx = flows of discharges with concentration of the substance x less that EAC.

QUAps = sum of the flows of unallocated point sources discharges.

( 10) If after the Board performed the WLA, one or more existing point sources are not meeting the WLA based effluent limitations, a compliance plan shall be submitted, for EQB approval, by such point sources indicating the way in which those point sources will attain compliance with the applicable WQS.

10.7 Reallocations All allocations are subject to review by the Board and, after such review, the Board may perform reallocations as it deems necessary.

The Board will review allocations:

1. If any factor or condition upon which a particular allocation is based changes significantly;

2. When a segment of a waterbody is not meeting the water quality standards after the Board performed a WLA;

3. When, in the judgment of the Board, the existing allocations are no longer equitable. In making a reallocation, the Board shall utilize the same procedure for allocations in accordance with WLAG and Section 10.6 of this Article.

10.8 Effectiveness Allocations shall go into effect after being incorporated into a discharge permit. 10.9 Validity An allocation shall be valid until the discharge permit expires; except when the same is revoked by the Board or a reallocation is performed by the Board.

10.10 Revocation The Board may revoke an allocation for the following reasons:

1. The petitioner's failure to fully disclose all relevant facts in the application or renewal, or the petitioner's misrepresentation of any relevant facts during the WLA evaluation or validation process.

2. Non compliance with any applicable provision of this Regulation.

3. Changes in the conditions under which the WLA was performed, including, but not limited to, background concentration, discharge flow, receiving water body flow and effluent characteristics, as originally approved by the Board.

4. There is an imminent threat to human health or the environment.

10.11 Procedures for Revoking Allocations If there are reasons to revoke an allocation, the Board shall notify the person to whom the waste load allocation was granted indicating the intention of revoking the allocation by means of a Show Cause Order. The procedures to follow are those specified in the Board's Internal Regulations for Administrative Hearings. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board may immediately revoke an allocated load without previous notice, or the opportunity of hearings if there is an imminent threat to human health or the environment.

10.12 Cost incurred by the Board Performing WLA The point sources shall pay to the Board any cost incurred by the Board in the performance of any WLA.

* * *  * * * Attachment Plan for the Development of the Anti Degradation Policy Attachment Plan for the Development of Antidegradation Implementation Procedures in Puerto Rico ( March 2003)

I. Overall: EQB, with assistance from EPA, will work to develop a guidance document which identifies Puerto Rico's enhanced antidegradation implementation procedures. This guidance document will not be not part of the 2002 revisions to the PRWQS and is, therefore, not tied to the current rulemaking schedule. In its FY 03 Consolidated Water Workplan, EQB has committed to completing these implementation procedures by June 30, 2003. EQB will form a workgroup of 2 to 3 key staff members to work on the development of this document. Work will begin once the current rulemaking has been completed. Completion of this document will address two concerns raised by the plaintiffs in full.

In summary, agreement has been reached between EQB and EPA staff to use EQB's current framework of working with EPA Region 2 in the point and non point sources control process for the development of the anti  degradation policy implementation II. Background: The point and non point sources issues are two key elements for the anti  degradation implementation process, and they are outlined in the Puerto Rico Continuing Planning Process ( CPP), along with the public participation requirements and the requirements for intergovernmental cooperation. In the point source point of view, many of the procedural and technical elements for the development and issue of the water quality certificates ( WQC), and the evaluation of available assimilative capacity are included in the PRWQSR. This process currently involves the following steps.

1. The evaluation of the permit application to determine if the effluent limits are adequate to meet the WQS, and issuance of draft WQCs ensuring that the discharge meet the WQS. When requesting a WQC the petitioner must submit, as part of the application, a characterization of the effluent and the limits requested be applicable to the effluent. The petitioner must demonstrate to the satisfaction and requirement of the Board that the limits requested shall not cause a exceedance of the water quality standards in the water body. In no case shall it be allowed that any discharge will cause a violation of the water quality standard in the receiving water body ( coastal, surface, estuarine and ground waters), if the average calculated from the flow proportional composite samples taken in a 24 hour period exceed the maximum limit allowed for that specific parameter as established in Article 3 of the WQSR.

2. The public noticing of these draft WQC and requesting public comment. EQB publishes a public notice in the newspaper of widest circulation in Puerto Rico informing its intention to grant or deny any WQC requested. EQB notifies the petitioner of the permit 15 days prior to the publishing date of the public notice, of the requirement to pay for the publication of said notice in order to allow the petitioner time to pay for the publication. The notice describes the location of the discharge or activity and includes: water body classification, name and address of the applicant, statement that a public hearing can be requested; preliminary determinations, statement that the draft WQC and draft NPDES permit are available for public scrutiny, and a statement that comments can be sent within 45 days of the notice. The final WQC is not issued until all comments are addressed.

3. EQB denies all certifications where the applicant fault to demonstrate that the discharge meet the WQS.

EQB follows the intergovernmental cooperation relationships outlined in the CPP.

The Proposed Approach: Under the proposed approach, the above four steps would be used in much the same way as they are used now for issuing WQCs which are necessary to comply with numeric WQS. However, instead of using compliance with numeric WQS as the end point, these four steps would be customized to address a scenario where an applicant, which was discharging into a " high quality water," requested additional loading, which would result in the lowering of water quality in the receiving water.

  The information and demonstration requested by EQB under Step 1 above, would be tailored to enable EQB to make a determination regarding the need to lower water quality in a high quality water.

  As in step 2, the public would have the opportunity to provide comment on the potential lowering of water quality.

  As in step 3, if EQB determining that the lowering of water quality was not justify, it would deny the certification.

  As in step 4, the Intergovernmental cooperation relationships would be followed. While the above approach may serve as the frame work for developing the enhanced implementation procedures, the details need to be discussed over the next several months, as described below.

IV. Elements of the Implementation Procedures which Must be Addressed:

There are several elements of the enhanced implementation procedures which need to be defined and further clarified. These include:

1. How EQB will define high quality waters ( e. g., parameter by parameter, designation, combination);

2. What activities EQB will review for each element of the policy ( e. g., requests for a new discharge, request for an increase in loadings for an existing NPDES permit, storm water general permits when issued, discharges requesting coverage under a general permit, 404 permits, non point source activities).

3. How EQB defines a lowering of water quality that would not require further review ( i. e., based on a percentage increase in loadings, a percentage reduction in assimilative capacity, or other); and,

4. The information that the applicant required to provide, which EQB will use in making its determination on a particular request ( i. e., the thresholds for the social and economic significance determinations).

5. How EQB will considerate the TMDL's implementation for point and non point sources based in a Watershed approach in the anti degradation implementation.


[Federal Register: October 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 204)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65250-65251]
[DOCID:fr22oc10-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0936; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-23]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace and Revocation of Class E
Airspace; Easton, MD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class E surface airspace and
airspace 700 feet above the surface, and remove Class E airspace
designated as an extension to Class D airspace at Easton, MD. The
Easton Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned and new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) have been developed for
Easton Airport/Newnam Field. This action would enhance the safety and
airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the
airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U. S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2010-0936; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-23, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2010-0936; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-23) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2010-0936; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-23.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/
publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation

Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify Class E surface airspace and
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to
accommodate new SIAPs developed for Easton Airport/Newnam Field,
Easton, MD, as the Easton NDB has been decommissioned. This eliminates
the need for Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D
surface area, and, therefore, would be removed for the continued safety
and management of IFR operations
    Class E airspace designated as surface areas, Class E airspace
designated as extensions to Class D airspace, and Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface are published in
Paragraph 6002, 6004, and 6005 respectively of FAA order 7400.9U, dated
August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
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
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would 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 proposed 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 proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would amend the Class E airspace area at Easton
Airport/Newnam Field, Easton, MD.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

    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]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, effective September 15, 2010,
is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.

* * * * *

AEA MD E2 Easton, MD [AMENDED]

Easton Airport/Newnam Field, MD
    (Lat. 38[deg]48'15'' N., long. 76[deg]04'08'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,600 feet MSL within a 4.0-mile radius of the Easton Airport/Newnam
Field. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously purblished
in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6004 Class E airspace areas designated as an extension to
a class D surface area.

* * * * *

AEA MD E4 Easton, MD [REMOVED]

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

AEA MD E5 Easton, MD [AMENDED]

Easton Airport/Newnam Field, MD
    (Lat. 38[deg]48'15'' N., long. 76[deg]04'08'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
of the Earth within a 6.5-mile radius of the Easton Airport/Newnam
Field.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 12, 2010.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-26684 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 23847]
[DOCID:fr21my09-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13464-000]

Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

May 13, 2009.
    On May 5, 2009, Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Wills Creek Hydroelectric
Project, to be located on the Wills Creek, in Coshocton County, Ohio.
    The proposed Pleasant Hill Hydroelectric Project would be located
at: (1) The existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1,950-foot-long, 87-
foot-high Wills Creek Dam; and (2) an existing 11,450-acre reservoir
having a normal water surface elevation of 742 feet mean sea level.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse
containing a single turbine generating unit with an installed capacity
of 1.5 megawatts; (2) a new 100-foot-long, 96-inch-diameter penstock;
(3) a new switchyard; (4) a new 1-mile-long, 15-kilovolt transmission
line; and (5) appurtenant facilities. The Wills Creek Project would
have an estimated average annual generation of 9.2 gigawatt-hours,
which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Anthony J. Marra Jr., President, Hydro
Energy Technologies, LLC, 31300 Solon Rd. Suite 12, Solon, OH 44139,
(440) 498-1000.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Website
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Website located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13464) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-11786 Filed 5-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62707-62708]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19735]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[USCG-2023-0698]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Missouri River MM 184.5-185.5, Rocheport, MO

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters in the Missouri River at Mile Marker (MM) 184.5
through 185.5. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment from all potential hazards associated with
the demolition of the I-70 Bridge. Entry of vessels or persons into
this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain
of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from September 13,
2023 through September 24, 2023. For the purposes of enforcement,
actual notice will be used from September 10, 2023 until September 13,
2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0698 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MSTC Nathaniel Dibley, Sector Upper Mississippi River
Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-
2560, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because a temporary safety zone must be
established immediately to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created by the demolition of the I-
70 bridge situated over the Missouri River and lack sufficient time to
provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments
before issuing the rule. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because
we must establish this safety zone September 10, 2023.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the demolition
of the I-70 bridge.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP)
has determined that potential hazards associated with the demolition of
the I-70 bridge will be a safety concern for anyone operating or
transiting within the Missouri River from MM 184.5 through 185.5. This
rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the
demolition is being conducted.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The I-70 Bridge, located between MM 184.5 and 185.5, will be
demolished. The planned date of demolition is September 10, 2023, with
an operational window until September 24, 2023, in the event of
inclement weather. The safety zone is designed to protect waterway
users until work is complete.
    No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) assigned to units under
the operational control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River. To seek
permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated representative
via VHF-FM channel 16, or through USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River
at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons and vessels permitted to enter the safety zone
must comply with all lawful orders or directions issued by the COTP or
designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative will
inform the public of the effective period for the safety zone as well
as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement, as well as
reductions in the size of the safety zone through Local Notice to
Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Safety
Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB), as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on a safety zone
located on the Missouri River at MM 184.5-185.5, near Rocheport, MO.
The Safety Zone is expected to be active only during the demolition
event, or until September 24, 2023.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone encompassing the width of the Missouri River at MM 184.5-
185.5. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating
the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security Measures, Waterways.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0698 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0698  Safety Zone; Missouri River, Mile Markers 184.5-
185.5, Rocheport, MO.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable
waters within Missouri River, Mile Markers 184.5-185.5, Rocheport, MO.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector
Upper Mississippi River.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general safety zone regulations in Sec.
165.23, entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section is prohibited unless authorized by the
COTP or a designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or a designated
representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through USCG Sector Upper
Mississippi River at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons and vessels permitted to
enter the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions
issued by the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period and informational broadcasts. This section
is subject to enforcement from September 10, 2023, through September
24, 2023. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the
public of the effective period for the safety zone and all dates and
times of enforcement, as well as reductions in size or scope of the
safety zone through Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), Broadcast Notices
to Mariners (BNMs), and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB)
as appropriate. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the
public through those same means of the termination of enforcement if
enforcement of the zone is no longer required prior to the rule's
termination.

    Dated: September 7, 2023.
A.R. Bender,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2023-19735 Filed 9-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P