[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57536-57538]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22891]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0936; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-269-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 737-700 and -700C series airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports of early fatigue cracks at
chem-mill areas on the crown skin panels. This proposed AD would
require repetitive inspections for cracking of the fuselage skin at
certain locations at chem-mill areas, and repair if necessary. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the skin
panel at the specified chem-mill step locations, which could result in
rapid decompression of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 2,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone: (425) 917-
6447; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0936;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-269-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received reports of early fatigue cracks near chem-mill areas on
the crown skin panels of Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. The cracks resulted from high stresses in the areas where
chem-mill pockets are adjacent to non-chem-mill areas.

Although we have not received any reports of this type of fuselage
fatigue cracks on Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, or -900ER
series airplanes, a full-scale fatigue test article was inspected for
skin cracks at similar structural details and two chem-mill cracks were
found that occurred late in the testing program. This condition, if not
detected and corrected, could result in rapid decompression of the
airplane.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1310, dated October 20,
2011, for Model 737-700 and -700C series airplanes. That service
bulletin describes, among other things, procedures for doing repetitive
external detailed inspections and external non-destructive inspections
(medium frequency eddy current (MFEC), magneto optic imager (MOI), C-
scan, or ultrasonic phased array (UTPA) inspections) of the fuselage
skin at specified locations where chem-mill areas are adjacent to non-
chem-mill areas at antenna and door bearstrap installations, and
repairs if necessary.
    Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1310, dated October 20, 2011, also
describes procedures for installing modification doublers, which
involves an external detailed inspection and an external non-
destructive (MFEC, MOI, C-scan, or UTPA) inspection for any cracking of
the area to be modified prior to the doubler being placed on that area,
a high frequency eddy current inspection of all existing holes for
cracking, and contacting Boeing if necessary. That service bulletin
also specifies that when a modification is accomplished, the repetitive
inspection for the area under the modification is no longer necessary.
    Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1310, dated October 20, 2011,
specifies an initial compliance time of 43,000 total flight cycles, or
1,500 flight cycles after the original issue date of that service
bulletin, whichever occurs later. That service bulletin specifies a
repetitive interval not to exceed 1,500 flight cycles or 2,100 flight
cycles, depending on inspection method.
    For airplanes that have incorporated Boeing Business Jet (BBJ)
lower cabin altitude supplemental type certificate (STC) ST010697SE,
all initial compliance times specified in flight cycles must be reduced
to half of those specified in that service bulletin, and all repeat
interval compliance times specified in flight cycles must be reduced to
one-quarter of those specified in that service bulletin.+

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''

Similar Rulemaking

    The crown skin panels on Model 737-700 and -700C series airplanes
are of a similar design to those on Model 737-300, -400, -500, -600, -
800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. Therefore, all these models may
be subject to the identified unsafe condition. We are considering
similar rulemaking for these additional models.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1310, dated October 20, 2011,
specifies to contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair
conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those
conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.
    Tables 2 through 7 in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-53-1310, dated October 20, 2011, specify post-
modification inspections at certain chem-mill step locations, which may
be used in support of compliance with section 121.1109(c)(2) or
129.109(c)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(c)(2)). However, this NPRM does not propose
to require those post-modification inspections. This difference has
been coordinated with Boeing.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 545 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts  cost     Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of chem-mill step       37 work-hours x $85  None..........  $3,145 per           $1,714,025 per
 locations.                         per hour = $3,145                    inspection cycle.    inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2012-0936; Directorate Identifier
2011-NM-269-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

We must receive comments by November 2, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-700 and -700C
series airplanes, as identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-
1310, dated October 20, 2011.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association
(ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of early fatigue cracks at chem-
mill areas on the crown skin panels. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct fatigue cracking of the skin panel at the
specified chem-mill step locations, which could result in rapid
decompression of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1310, dated
October 20, 2011, except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD: Do
an external detailed inspection and an external non-destructive
inspection (a medium frequency eddy current (MFEC), magneto optic
imager (MOI), C-scan, or ultrasonic phased array (UTPA) inspection)
for cracking in the fuselage skin along the chem-mill steps at
certain locations specified in, and in accordance with, Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-53-1310, dated October 20, 2011. Repeat the
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD thereafter at the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1310, dated October 20, 2011.

(h) Repair

    If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair the cracking
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (l) of this AD. Accomplishing the repair approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD
terminates the repetitive inspection requirement for that area under
the repair only.

(i) Optional Terminating Modification

    Modification of an inspection area, including an external
detailed inspection and an external non-destructive inspection
(MFEC, MOI, C-scan, or UTPA) for cracking of the area to be
modified, and a high frequency eddy current inspection of all
existing holes for cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1310, dated October
20, 2011, terminates the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (g) of this AD for that area only. If any cracking is
found during any inspection described by this paragraph, before
further flight, repair the cracking using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this
AD.

(j) Service Bulletin Exception

    Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1310, dated October 20, 2011,
specifies compliance times ``after the original issue date of this
service bulletin.'' However, this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance times ``after the effective date of this AD.''

(k) Post-Modification Inspections

    The post-modification inspections specified in Tables 2 through
7 of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-
53-1310, dated October 20, 2011, are not required by this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (k) of this AD:  The damage tolerance
inspections specified in Tables 2 through 7 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1310, dated
October 20, 2011, may be used in support of compliance with section
121.1109(c)(2) or 129.109(c)(2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR 121.1109(c)(2) or 14 CFR 129.109(c)(2)). The actions
specified in Part 5 of the Accomplishment Instructions and
corresponding figures of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1310, dated
October 20, 2011, are not required by this AD.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Wayne Lockett,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 4, 2012.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-22891 Filed 9-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 52 (Friday, March 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14894-14895]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings.

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-588-001.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to RP21-588-000 to be
effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210311-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/17/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-617-000.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Tracker (Empire Tracking
Supply Retainage 2021) to be effective 4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210311-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-618-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing Operational Flow Order Penalties
Waiver Request.
    Filed Date: 3/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210311-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-619-000.
    Applicants: Arlington Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Arlington Storage Company,
LLC, Filing of Amendments to Nonconforming Agreements to be effective
4/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/12/21.
    Accession Number: 20210312-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-620-000.
    Applicants: GreenAmerica Biofuels Ord LLC, Green Plains Ord LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of Capacity Release
Regulations, et al. of GreenAmerica Biofuels Ord LLC, et al. under
RP21-620.
    Filed Date: 3/12/21.
    Accession Number: 20210312-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/19/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-621-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: ANR WPS NRA Amendments to be
effective 4/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/12/21.
    Accession Number: 20210312-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.

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

    Dated: March 15, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-05707 Filed 3-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 41)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11002]
[DOCID:fr29fe08-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0104; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-10]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Oil City, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule
that establishes a Class E airspace area to support Area Navigation
(RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Special Instrument Approach
Procedures (IAPs) that serve the Northwest Medical Center in Oil City,
PA.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 14, 2008. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist,
System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia
Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (404) 305-
5572.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments in the Federal Register on December 19, 2007 (72 FR 71762).
The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non
controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse
public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no
adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would
become effective on February 14, 2008. No adverse comments were
received, and thus this notice confirms that effective date.

    Issued in College Park, GA, on February 12, 2008.
John D. Haley,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. 08-875 Filed 2-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: November 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 59159-59161]
[DOCID:fr17no09-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

November 12, 2009.
    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

Agency Holding Meeting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Date and Time: November 19, 2009, 10 a.m.

Place: Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

Status: Open.

Matters To Be Considered: Agenda: Note: Items listed on the agenda may
be deleted without further notice.

Contact Person For More Information: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the
meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link,
or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

                                                 953RD--Meeting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Item No.                      Docket No.                                  Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Administrative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1........................  AD02-1-000.....................  Agency Administrative Matters--FERC Strategic
                                                               Plan.
A-2........................  AD02-7-000.....................  Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market
                                                               Operations.
A-3........................  AD06-3-000.....................  Winter Energy Market Assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Electric
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1........................  ER09-636-000...................  Entergy Services, Inc.

E-2........................  ER09-1048-000, ER06-615-018,     California Independent System Operator
                              ER06-615-037.                    Corporation.
E-3........................  ER09-1050-000, ER09-748-000,     Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
                              ER09-1192-000.
E-4........................  ER09-1051-000..................  ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool.
E-5........................  ER09-1142-000..................  New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
E-6........................  RM08-19-000, RM08-19-001, RM09-  Mandatory Reliability Standards for the
                              5-000, RM06-16-005.              Calculation of Available Transfer Capability,
                                                               Capacity Benefit Margins, Transmission
                                                               Reliability Margins, Total Transfer Capability,
                                                               and Existing Transmission Commitments and
                                                               Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-
                                                               Power System
E-7........................  RM05-5-013.....................  Standards for Business Practices and Communication
                                                               Protocols for Public Utilities.
E-8........................  OMITTED........................
E-9........................  RM05-17-005, RM05-25-005.......  Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in
                                                               Transmission Service.
E-10.......................  OMITTED........................
E-11.......................  OMITTED........................
E-12.......................  ER10-32-000....................  California Independent System Operator
                                                               Corporation.
E-13.......................  ER09-1681-000..................  California Independent System Operator
                                                               Corporation.
E-14.......................  OMITTED........................
E-15.......................  ER08-1178-001, ER08-1178-002,    California Independent System Operator
                              EL08-88-001, EL08-88-002.        Corporation.
E-16.......................  ER06-456-006, ER06-954-002,      PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
                              ER06-1271-001, ER07-424-000,
                              EL07-57-000.
E-17.......................  ER09-262-003...................  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-18.......................  ER09-1762-000..................  Westar Energy, Inc.
E-19.......................  ER08-733-000...................  Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
E-20.......................  EL09-73-000....................  Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc. v. Pacific
                                                               Gas & Electric Company and California Energy
                                                               Commission.
E-21.......................  OMITTED........................
E-22.......................  EL00-95-184....................  San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of
                                                               Energy and Ancillary Services Into Markets
                                                               Operated by the California Independent System
                                                               Operator Corporation and the California Power
                                                               Exchange.
E-23.......................  EC08-59-002....................  Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd.,
                                                               Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations
                                                               Fund, L.P.
E-24.......................  EC08-117-001...................  Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd.,
                                                               Harbinger Capital Partners Special Situations
                                                               Fund, L.P.
E-25.......................  ER99-2311-012..................  Carolina Power & Light Company.
                             ER97-2846-015..................  Florida Power Corporation.
                             ER07-188-007...................  Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
                             ER91-569-045...................  Entergy Services, Inc.
                             ER02-862-012...................  Entergy Power Ventures, LP.
                             ER01-666-012...................  EWO Marketing, LP.
                             ER91-569-047...................  Entergy Power, Inc.
                             ER94-1188-046..................  LG&E Energy Marketing Inc.
                             ER99-1623-015..................  Louisville Gas & Electric Company.
                             ER98-4540-015..................  Kentucky Utilities Company.
                             ER96-1085-014..................  South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
                             ER96-780-023...................  Southern Company Services, Inc., Alabama Power
                                                               Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power
                                                               Company, Mississippi Power Company, Southern
                                                               Power Company
                             ER99-2342-013..................  Tampa Electric Company.
                             AD10-2-000.....................  Guidance on Simultaneous Transmission Import Limit
                                                               Studies.
E-26.......................  EL08-77-001....................  Central Maine Power Company; Maine Public Service
                                                               Company.
E-27.......................  ER09-1618-000..................  Montana Alberta Tie Ltd.
                                                              MATL LLP.
E-28.......................  EC08-87-001....................  Entegra Power Group LLC., Gila River Power, L.P.,
                                                               Union Power Partners, L.P., Harbinger Capital
                                                               Partners Master Fund I, Ltd., Harbinger Capital
                                                               Partners Special Situations Fund, L.P.
E-29.......................  EL09-31-000....................  Sun Edison LLC.
E-30.......................  EL09-74-000....................  Green Energy Express LLC.
E-31.......................  EL09-70-000....................  Milford Wind Corridor, LLC.
E-32.......................  EL09-77-000....................  JD Wind 1, LLC., JD Wind 2, LLC., JD Wind 3, LLC.,
                                                               JD Wind 4, LLC., JD Wind 5, LLC., JD Wind 6, LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Gas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1........................  PR09-31-000....................  The Dow Chemical Company., Dow Pipeline Company,
                                                               Dow Hydrocarbons and Resources LLC.
G-2........................  RM96-1-036.....................  Standards for Business Practices for Interstate
                                                               Natural Gas Pipelines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                      Hydro
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1........................  P-2438-095.....................  Seneca Falls Power Corporation.
H-2........................  P-13351-001....................  Marseilles Land and Water Company.
                             P-13176-001....................  Marseilles Land and Water Company.
                             P-13231-001....................  Marseilles Land and Water Company.
                             P-13159-001....................  City of Marseilles, Illinois.
                             P-13230-002....................  City of Marseilles, Illinois.
                             P-13394-001....................  City of Marseilles, Illinois.
H-3........................  EL09-55-001, P-2100-171........  County of Butte, California v. California
                                                               Department of Water Resources.
H-4........................  EL06-91-004, P-12252-031.......  Albany Engineering Corporation v. Hudson River-
                                                               Black River Regulating District.
H-5........................  P-2169-095.....................  Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1........................  OMITTED........................
C-2........................  CP09-17-000, AC08-161-000......  Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
C-3........................  CP09-68-000....................  Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
C-4........................  CP09-461-000...................  Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
C-5........................  CP09-415-000...................  Northwest Pipeline GP.
C-6........................  CP09-60-002....................  Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    A free webcast of this event is available through http://
www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this
event can do so by navigating to http://www.ferc.gov's Calendar of
Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its Web cast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the free Web casts. It also offers access to this event via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have
any questions, visit http://www.CapitolConnection.org or contact
Danelle Springer or David Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. E9-27689 Filed 11-13-09; 4:15 pm]


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35682-35683]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14635]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2013-1021]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay,
Ocean City, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule that
governs the US 50 Bridge, over Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay, mile
0.5, Ocean City, MD. This rule changes the language of the regulation
to reflect new closure times to accommodate heavy volumes of vehicular
traffic following the annual July 4th fireworks show.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 24, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2013-1021. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this final
rule, call or email Mrs. Traci Whitfield, Bridge Management Assistant,
Coast Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on reviewing the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
U.S.C. United States Code

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On April 1, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled, ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Isle of Wight
(Sinepuxent) Bay, Ocean City, MD'' in the Federal Register (79 FR
18243). The Coast Guard received no comments on the proposed rule. No
public meeting was requested, and none was held.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 533(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. A 30-day delayed effective date is
impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Since there were no
objections to this rule during notice and comment and to accommodate
the approaching fireworks show scheduled on July 4, 2014, which
includes heavy volumes of vehicular traffic following the show, it
would be impracticable and contrary to public interest to delay the
effective date.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The US 50 Bridge is a single-leaf bascule bridge with a vertical
clearance of approximately 13 feet above mean high water in the closed
position and unlimited in the open position.
    The Ocean City Police Department, on behalf of the Maryland
Department of Transportation, requested to change the current operating
regulation for the US 50 Bridge across Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay,
mile 0.5, at Ocean City, MD to accommodate the annual Ocean City July
4th fireworks show and the heavy volumes of vehicular traffic that
transit across the drawbridge. The Ocean City Police Department
requested that the bridge closure times be changed from 9:30 p.m. until
10:30 p.m., to 10:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. Since the fireworks show
runs between 9:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., there is very little traffic
crossing the bridge. However, there remains a high volume of traffic
between 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. This change will allow for a more
orderly process of transiting the heavy volumes of vehicular traffic
following the fireworks show.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the notice of
proposed rulemaking. As a result, no changes have been made to this
final rule. Therefore, we revised the times in 117.559(c) from the
current times of 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. to new times of 10 p.m. to 11
p.m.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    The Coast Guard developed this rule after considering numerous
statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below the Coast
Guard summarizes our analyses based on these statutes or executive
orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders. The changes are expected to
have minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. Mariners
can plan their trips in accordance with the revised schedule to
minimize delays. While the times are changing, mariners are familiar
with this bridge closure because for the past 12 years the Coast Guard
has allowed the bridge to remain in the closed position for the
fireworks event.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This final rule would affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels needing to
transit through the bridge from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m., on July 4th or
July 5th of every year. This action will not have

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the rule adds minimal restrictions to the movement of
navigation and mariners who plan their transits in accordance with the
scheduled bridge closure can minimize delay. This event has occurred
every year for the past 12 years; therefore, mariners should be
familiar with planning their transits accordingly. Vessels that can
safely transit under the bridge may do so at any time.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    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
Fairneww 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.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    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. The Coast Guard have analyzed this rule under that Order
and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact 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.

7. 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 expenditure, Coast Guard does discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, Coast Guard
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded that this action is one of a category of actions which
do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating
regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  117.559(c), to read as follows:

Sec.  117.559  Isle of Wight (Sinepuxent) Bay.

* * * * *
    (c) On July 4, the draw need not open from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. to
accommodate the annual July 4th fireworks show. Should inclement
weather prevent the fireworks event from taking place as planned, the
draw need not open from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on July 5th to
accommodate the annual July 4th fireworks show.

    Dated: June 10, 2014.
Stephen P. Metruck,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-14635 Filed 6-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65203-65204]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20402]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0042]

CSA Group Testing & Certification, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of
Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand
the scope of recognition of CSA Group Testing & Certification, Inc., as
a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
September 21, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2300 or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of CSA Group Testing & Certification, Inc. (CSA) as a NRTL.
CSA's expansion covers the addition of sixteen test sites to its NRTL
scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the
type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the
applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have
the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope.
Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority;
however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the
NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and
certification.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial
recognition, as well as for an expansion or renewal of recognition,
following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix
requires that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides the preliminary finding. In the second notice,
the agency provides the final decision on the application. These
notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of
that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page for each NRTL,
including CSA, which details that NRTL's scope of recognition. These
pages are available from the OSHA website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    CSA submitted an application, dated December 15, 2020 (OSHA-2006-
0042-0034), requesting the conversion of sixteen existing Satellite
Notification Acceptance Program (SNAP) sites to recognized sites under
the NRTL Policy for Transitioning to Satellite Notification and
Acceptance Program Termination (SNAP Transition Policy) published in
the Federal Register on

November 24, 2020 (85 FR 75042), as amended by a June 22, 2022
Memorandum from James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Occupational Safety and Health, to Regional Administrators and
Executive Staff, titled ``Second Revision to the Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Policy for Transitioning to Satellite
Notification and Acceptance Program (SNAP) Termination.''
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing CSA's expansion
application in the Federal Register on August 15, 2023 (88 FR 55480).
The agency requested comments by August 30, 2023, but it received no
comments in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this
final grant of expansion of CSA's NRTL recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
the CSA application, go to http://www.regulations.gov or contact the
Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor. Docket No. OSHA-2006-0042 contains all materials
in the record concerning CSA's recognition. All submissions, including
copyrighted material, are available for inspection through the OSHA
Docket Office. Contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY
number<PHONE_NUMBER>) for assistance in locating docket submissions.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined CSA's expansion application, its capability to
meet the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent
information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that CSA
meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its
recognition, subject to the specified limitations and condition. OSHA
limits the expansion of CSA's recognition to include the sixteen sites
listed in Table 1, below. This limitation is consistent with the
recognition that OSHA grants to other NRTLs that operate multiple
sites.

    Table 1--List of Test Sites for Inclusion in CSA's NRTL Scope of
                               Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         CSA site name                  Address              Country
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSA Group Milan...............  Palazzo Cassiopea, Via  Italy.
                                 Paracelso N 22 20864
                                 Agrate Brianza, Italy.
CSA Group Dallas..............  2860 Guilder Drive,     United States.
                                 Plano, Texas 75074.
CSA Group Bangalore...........  Beary's Global          India.
                                 Research Triangle, A-
                                 3, Einstein Building
                                 Bidarahalli Hobli,
                                 Whitefield Ashram
                                 Road (SH 35)
                                 Bangalore--560 067,
                                 India.
CSA Group Hawarden............  Unit 6 Hawarden         United Kingdom.
                                 Industrial Park
                                 Hawarden, CH5 3US,
                                 United Kingdom.
CSA Group Plattling...........  Straubinger Str. 100    Germany.
                                 94447 Plattling,
                                 Germany.
CSA Group Seoul...............  494, Wiryesunhwan-ro,   Korea.
                                 Songpa-gu Seoul,
                                 Republic of Korea.
CSA Group Taoyuan.............  No. 26, Fuxing 3rd      Taiwan.
                                 Road Guishan
                                 District, Taoyuan
                                 City, Taiwan.
CSA Group Taipei..............  5F No. 12, Wenhu        Taiwan.
                                 Street Neihu
                                 District, Taipei City
                                 114 Taiwan.
CSA Group Tokyo...............  5-40-6 Koishikawa       Japan.
                                 Bunkyo-ku Tokyo 112-
                                 0002 Japan.
CSA Group Shanghai............  Floor 1, Building 4     China.
                                 Qilai Industrial
                                 City, 889 Yishan
                                 Road, Shanghai, China
                                 200233.
CSA Group Atlanta.............  6215 Shiloh Crossing,   United States.
                                 Building 100 Suite A,
                                 Alpharetta, GA 30005.
CSA Group Taichung............  2F. -5 No. 633, Sec.    Taiwan.
                                 2, Taiwan Blvd. Xitun
                                 District, Taichung
                                 City 407, Taiwan.
CSA Group Kunshan.............  Floor 1, Building 8     China.
                                 Tsinghua Science Park
                                 No. 1666 Zuchongzhi
                                 Road Kunshan,
                                 Jiangsu, China 215347.
CSA Group Arnhem..............  Utrechtseweg 310, 6812  Netherlands.
                                 AR Arnhem,
                                 Netherlands.
CSA Group Guangzhou...........  No. 10, Ke Yan Road,    China.
                                 Guangzhou Science
                                 Park Huang Pu
                                 District, Guangzhou,
                                 China 510663.
CSA Group Frankfurt...........  Weismullerstr. 45,      Germany.
                                 60314 Frankfurt,
                                 Germany.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
CSA must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. CSA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. CSA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. CSA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on CSA's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
scope of recognition of CSA as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and
conditions specified above.

III. Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29
U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393,
Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2023-20402 Filed 9-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


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

EPA Registration Division Contact: Kathryn Montague<PHONE_NUMBER>

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

[K-I CHEMICAL U.S.A., INC.]

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
K-I CHEMICAL U.S.A., INC. c/o Landis International, Inc., P. O. Box 5126
Valdosta, GA  31603-5126 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to
amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing  tolerances for residues of the
sum of pyroxasulfone
[3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]m
ethyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethylisoxazole] and its metabolite
5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic
 acid (M-3) calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
pyroxasulfone, in or on the raw agricultural commodities corn, field,
grain at 0.02 ppm (parts per million) and pyroxasulfone
[3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]m
ethyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethylisoxazole] and its metabolites
[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methan
esulfonic acid (M-1),
5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-carboxylic
 acid (M-3), and
[5-(difluoromethoxy)-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methanesulfonic
acid (M-25), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
pyroxasulfone, in or on the raw agricultural commodities corn, field,
forage at 0.09 ppm (parts per million).  EPA has determined that the
petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth
in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.

Residue Chemistry

1. Plant Metabolism. Plant metabolism studies were conducted and
accepted by the Agency for soybean and field corn.  The plant and animal
metabolism of pyroxasulfone is well understood. Primary metabolic
processes are cleavage between the two ring structures, side chain
oxidation to carboxylic acid and demethylation.  Pyroxasulfone and its
major metabolites M-1, M-3, and M-25 were metabolites in corn and
soybean.  The metabolism of pyroxasulfone in plants and animals is
understood for the purposes of the proposed tolerances.  Pyroxasulfone
and its metabolites M-1, M-3, M-25and M-28 are the residues of concern
for tolerance setting purposes for soybean.

	2. Analytical method. EPA has approved an analytical enforcement
methodology including liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, and mass
spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) to enforce the tolerance expression for
pyroxasulfone.

	3. Magnitude of residues.

Corn Residue Data

Initially, a total of 37 corn residue raw agricultural commodity (RAC)
field trials were conducted in regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 12 of
the United States (MRID 47701656). A total of 11 of these trials were
sweet corn trials and the remaining were field corn trials. Three of
these trials were residue decline trials to determine residue decline in
the respective corn RAC matrices after application. Three comparison
trials, on three different soil types; fine, medium and course, were
conducted to compare five different application types in different plots
at the same site including pre-plant to surface, pre-plant incorporated,
post-planting but pre-emergence of weeds or crop, early postemergence
and split application with pre-emergence and post-emergence. Application
rates for these comparison trials were 166 g a.i./ha, 209 g a.i./ha and
300 g a.i.lha for the course, medium and fine soil type, respectively.
For the remaining 34 studies, application rates were 166 g a.i./ha on
course soil types and 300 g a.i./ha on medium and fine soil types.
Applications for these 34 trials were post-emergence applications
(approximately V4 growth stage). One trial included a plot with a 5X
application rate (post-emergence) in which the grain was collected for
processing. Samples were collected from each plot at the appropriate
time (normal maturity except samples from the residue decline trials
which were collected earlier). Matrices were extracted with acetonitrile
or aqueous methanol followed by various cleanup steps depending on the
matrix and ana1yte. Analysis was performed using LC-MS/MS for
pyroxasu1fone and its metabolites in all matrices. The LOQ was 0.005 ppm
for all matrices except two metabolites one in meal and one in oil for
the LOQs which were 0.01 ppm. The residue in all field com grain samples
was below LOQ. All field com processed commodity matrix samples showed
residues less than the respective LOQ for that particular matrix.

A second study (MRID 48767101) was conducted to obtain RAC residue data
for pyroxasulfone (KIH-485) and its metabolites M-1, M-3, and M-25 on
corn following a single post-emergence application of pyroxasulfone 85
WG herbicide at the V3-V5 growth stage with and without adjuvant and
fertilizer to determine if adding fertilizer and/or adjuvant to the
spray solution affected the residues in the harvested crop. The matrices
analyzed were forage, stover, and grain, and residues of KIH-485, M-1,
M-3, and M-25 were analyzed. The study was conducted at three trial
locations in the United States including: Georgia (GA), Missouri (MO),
and Nebraska (NE), representing United States EPA Regions 2, 4 and 5,
respectively. The protocol was designed according to a request from the
EPA regarding the number of treated plots and treatments and the number
of treated samples (4 treated samples collected per plot instead of 2 as
required by the guideline). In each trial, there was one non-treated
plot and three treated plots. Applications were made related to the soil
type at a target rate of 0.148 lb ai/A (166 grams ai/ha) for the coarse
textured soil site (GA) and 0.268 lb ai/A (300 grams ai/ha) for the
other two locations MO and NE (medium and fine textured soil sites,
respectively). At the appropriate preharvest harvest intervals (PHIs),
corn samples were collected for each matrix (forage, stover, and grain),
frozen and shipped frozen to the analytical laboratory for analysis. A
limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.005 ppm was determined for the parent
molecule (KIH-485), M-1, M-3 and M-25. Concurrent recoveries were
conducted with fortification levels of 0.005 ppm and 0.05 ppm. Most
recoveries for all analyses of each analyte in each matrix were within
the accepted range (70-120%). No residue of the parent pyroxasulfone
molecule was seen in any corn matrix above the LOQ of 0.005 ppm.
Residues of the metabolites of pyroxasulfone (M-1, M-3, and M-25) were
found in selected samples. These residues were added to the OECD MRL
calculator along with the original corn field trial residues without
adjuvant to determine the appropriate tolerances. As indicted by EPA
memo dated January 10, 2013 DP Barcode:  D402247 (Pyroxasulfone. Summary
of Residue Data for Pyroxasulfone Use on Corn with and without Adjuvant
and Field Rotational Crop Residue Data) and EPA email dated March 20,
2013 the purpose of this tolerance petition is to increase the corn
forage tolerance from 0.06 ppm to 0.09 ppm due the conservative
tolerance determined by the OECD MRL calculator.

Confined Rotational Crop Study

Pyrazole or isoxazoline ring labeled 14C KIH-485 was sprayed on confined
plots of bare soil prior to planting soybean, radish and wheat at 30,
120 and 365 day intervals.  There were two treated plots for each
plantback interval, one of which was wheat only and the other was
planted half with soybean and half with radish.  All plots were treated
at a target application rate of 300 g a.i./ha but the actual rate was
313 g a.i./ha.  Samples were analyzed by combustion analysis and liquid
scintillation counting.  All treated crops contained radioactive residue
>0.01 ppm and were subjected to further analysis.  The highest total
radioactive residue (TRR), 5.2 ppm was found at the 30 day rotational in
wheat straw; the residue level declined to 0.02 ppm at 485 days.  The
primary metabolites were M-1 and M-3.

Field Rotational Crop Study

A field rotational crop study was conducted in Georgia (GA) and Texas
(TX) on a fine and coarse textured soil, respectively. The purpose of
the study was to obtain raw agricultural commodity (RAC) residue data
for pyroxasulfone and its metabolites M-1, M-3, M-25, M-28, and M-37 on
rotational crops that are planted in plots that have been treated with
Pyroxasulfone 85 WG at the proposed label rate and aged for various time
intervals prior to planting the rotational plot. Each plot was treated
at an appropriate time for growing the target crop and then allowed to
age for the specified aging interval (120, 270, 300 and 365 days,
nominal intervals).  There was no residue seen in any crop matrix at any
sampling interval above the LOQ except for one replicate 120 day potato
top sample which showed residue of M-1 at the LOQ (0.01 ppm).    As a
result, neither pyroxasulfone nor any of its metabolites are expected to
accumulate in rotational crops when Pyroxasulfone 85 WG is applied to
target crops at the labeled rates.

Cow Feeding Study

	Holstein dairy cows were treated orally with gelatin capsules fortified
with pyroxasulfone.  These were administered once daily for 28
consecutive days at dose levels of 0, 1.8, 5.4, and 18 ppm per cow/day
on a dry weight basis amounting to concentrations of control, 1X, 3X and
10X dose groups, respectively.  These dose levels were equivalent to 0,
35.8 mg/cow/day, 109.9 mg/cow/day and 367.4 mg/cow/day, respectively.
Milk samples from the high dose animals (10X) were found to contain no
residues of the parent compound or metabolites with the exception of 3
milk samples from day 7 which contained an average of 0.003 ppm parent
pyroxasulfone.  No other milk samples from the other dose levels were
found to contain residues of pyroxasulfone or metabolites.  No other
matrix (muscle, liver, kidney or fat) was found to contain residues of
pyroxasulfone or metabolites above LOQ.  The LOQs were 0.001 ppm in milk
and 0.01 ppm in all other matrices.  Therefore, no tolerances for
residues of pyroxasulfone and its metabolites are being proposed for
meat, milk, eggs or other edible tissues of livestock or poultry.

B. Toxicological Profile

1.  Acute Toxicity. Pyroxasulfone was found to be of low acute toxicity
via oral, dermal and inhalation routes of administration.  It was not
irritating to skin or eyes and was not a sensitizing agent.  The
formulated product (85WG) was also of low acute toxicity and was found
to be mildly irritating to skin, moderately irritating to eyes and was a
dermal sensitizer.  In an acute neurotoxicity study in rats, there were
no test substance-related effects on body weights, food consumption,
clinical observations, functional observational battery assessments,
motor activity measurements, or gross and microscopic neuropathology.
The NOEL was demonstrated to be >2000 mg/kg/day in adult male and female
rats.

2.  Genotoxicity. Pyroxasulfone and its metabolites and impurities do
not induce gene mutations in bacterial cells.  Pyroxasulfone does not
induce gene mutations or chromosomal aberrations in in vitro mammalian
cells or in vivo in the mouse micronucleus test.  Pyroxasulfone is
non-genotoxic.

3.  Reproductive and developmental toxicity. In a developmental toxicity
study in rats, the NOEL for maternal and developmental toxicity was
>1000 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.

	In a developmental toxicity study in rabbits, there were slight test
substance-related effects on fetal weight and number of implant
resorptions at 1000 mg/kg/day, the highest dose tested.  The NOEL for
maternal toxicity was 1000 mg/kg/day. The NOEL for developmental
toxicity was 500 mg/kg/day.

	In a rat one-generation reproductive study no reproductive toxicity was
observed up to and including the high dose of 5000 ppm.  The NOEL for
reproductive toxicity was >5000 ppm, the highest dose tested.  The NOEL
for P1 adult rats was 25 ppm.  The NOEL for F1 offspring was 250 ppm and
the NOEL for F1 adults was 250 ppm.

	In a rat two-generation reproduction study there were no test
substance-related effects for reproductive toxicity at 2000 ppm, the
highest concentration tested.   The NOEL for reproductive toxicity was
>2000 ppm, the highest concentration tested. Test substance-related
effects were observed at 2000 ppm in both adults and offspring.
Therefore, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was demonstrated to be 100
ppm (6.94 – 11.76 mg/kg/day) in both parents and offspring.

	In a developmental neurotoxicity study conducted on pyroxasulfone in
mated female rats no reproductive effects were observed in the maternal
animals at 2000 ppm, the highest concentration tested. No effects were
observed on FOBs, auditory startle response habituation, pre-pulse
inhibition, learning and memory of offspring.  A slight (5%) decrease in
absolute brain weight at 900 mg/kg/day was present on PD 66, although no
effect was present when evaluated on a % body weight basis.  Based on
the effects observed in this study, the maternal and offspring systemic
NOAEL is 900 mg/kg/day. The NOEL for functional development was judged
to be 900 mg/kg/day. A NOEL for histomorphological development of the
brain of the offspring was judged to be 300 mg/kg/day.

	Two studies were performed to assess the availability of the test
substance to the pup.  These studies indicated that pyroxasulfone was
available in the milk to nursing pups.

	4.  Subchronic toxicity. Pyroxasulfone was evaluated in a 28-day
inhalation toxicity study in rats.  There were no test substance-related
effects.  The NOEL was >200 mg/m3, the highest dose tested.

	In a 28-day dermal toxicity study there was a test substance-related
increase in the incidence of minimal to mild cardiac myofiber
degeneration with inflammation observed in males and females dosed with
1000 mg/kg/day and cutaneous myofiber degeneration with inflammation
observed in the treated skin of males dosed with 1000 mg/kg/day.  The
NOEL was 100 mg/kg/day.

	Immunotoxicity was evaluated in rats and mice following dietary
exposure for 28 days.  There were no test substance related effects for
any of the immunotoxicity parameters examined.  In the rat, systemic
toxicity was limited to reductions in body weight and food consumption.
The NOEL for immunotoxicity was 7500 ppm (529 and 570 mg/kg in males and
females) and the NOEL for systemic effects was 250 ppm (18 and 19 mg/kg
in males and females).  In the mouse, the NOEL for immunotoxicity was
4000 ppm (633 mg/kg/day males: 791 mg/kg/day females) and the NOEL for
systemic effects was 400 ppm (61 mg/kg males: 77 mg/kg females).

	Pyroxasulfone was evaluated in 13-week oral toxicity studies in rats,
mice and dogs. In the 13 week mouse study, no test substance-related
effects on in-life and clinical pathology parameters were observed at
any level tested. Test substance-related effects at 2500 ppm were
limited to an increased incidence of minimal to mild chronic progressive
nephropathy in female mice and increased liver weight in males and
females fed 2500 ppm.  The NOEL was 250 ppm for female mice (51.2
mg/kg/day).  The NOEL for male mice was 2500 ppm (394.0 mg/kg/day).

	 In the 13 week rat study, a NOEL of 250 ppm for male and female rats
corresponded to mean daily intake values of 16.4 and 20.6 mg/kg/day in
males and females, respectively.  Test substance related effects were
increased cardiac myofiber degeneration with inflammation and diffuse
mucosal hyperplasia of the urinary bladder.  Increased liver weights and
centrilobular hypertrophy were also observed in 2500 ppm males and
females. In a second study evaluating recovery, full or partial recovery
was evident in all the above effects apart from kidney weights in
females with all microscopic findings in the liver, heart, muscle and
pancreas of 5000 ppm animals comparable to control rats indicating a
complete reversal of the treatment-related findings noted at the
terminal sacrifice.

	In an oral 90 day toxicity study in beagle dogs administered
pyroxasulfone in a capsule, the NOEL was 2.0 mg/kg. The only effects
noted were degeneration of muscle fiber of the musculature portion of
the diaphragm, hyperplasia of the satellite cell of the muscle and nerve
fiber degeneration of the sciatic nerve in one 10mg/kg/day group male
only.  In a second study dosed with 0 or 15 mg/kg of pyroxasulfone,
male dogs showed a decrease in body weight and histopathology similar to
the full study.

	Pyroxasulfone was evaluated in a subchronic 90 day neurotoxicity
dietary study in rats.  There were no effects on body weights, food
consumption, clinical observations, FOB assessments, motor activity
measurements, or gross and microscopic neuropathology. The NOEL was
>2500 ppm, the highest dose tested, for male and female rats
corresponding to mean daily intake values of 161.48 and 199.59 mg/kg/day
in males and females, respectively.

5.  Chronic toxicity. Chronic toxicity studies were conducted in the rat
and dog. In the rat one year chronic toxicity study test
substance-related effects occurred at 1000 ppm and above that included
reduced body weight parameters and microscopic findings in the liver
(centrilobular hepatocellular hypertrophy in males), heart (increased
cardiomyopathy in females) and urinary bladder (mucosal hyperplasia in
males and females) and urinary bladder hyperplasia considered to be
secondary to inflammation or irritation.  At 2000 ppm, these effects
were accompanied by increased clinical observations of red discharge
from the penis and associated red-stained cageboards as well as
increased liver and kidney weights. A slight increase in liver and
kidney weights was observed in the 2000 ppm male and female dietary
exposure groups. The NOEL is 50 ppm (2.22 and 3.12 mg/kg/day for males
and females, respectively).

	In a one-year dog study beagle dogs/sex/dose were administered capsules
containing 0.0, 0.2, 2.0 and 10.0 mg/kg/day.  Adverse test
article-related findings were limited to the 10.0 mg/kg/day group, the
highest dose tested and not all animals at the 10 mg/kg/day dosage had
clear test-article related abnormal observations.  Adverse changes in
the clinical pathology parameters were increases in creatine kinase,
aspartate aminotransferase and change in the pathology limited to the
sciatic nerve and spinal cord.  The NOAEL is 2.0 mg/kg/day.

	The carcinogenic potential of pyroxasulfone was evaluated in rats and
mice. The Agency has classified pyroxasulfone as “Not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans” at doses that do not cause crystals with
subsequent calculi formation resulting in cellular damage of the urinary
tract.

6.  Animal metabolism.  In the rat, pyroxasulfone is rapidly and
completely eliminated.  Between 80 to 90% of pyroxasulfone was
eliminated in the urine during the first 24 hours and elimination was
essentially complete after 48 to 72 hours.  Absorption was calculated
(bile and urine) at 76%.  Maximum plasma concentrations were achieved at
2 hours in the low and 11 hours in the high dose animals.  At 96 hours
only 7% of the low dose and <0.5% of the high dose was present in the
carcass demonstrating the near complete elimination of pyroxasulfone.
Of the radioactivity present in the animals, the highest levels were
seen in the liver and kidney.  The major metabolites were a carboxylated
(pyrazole ring methyl group) and cleavage products between the
isoxazoline and pyrazole ring structure with subsequent carboxylation.
The absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination of
pyroxasulfone is unaffected by sex or treatment regimen.

	In a preliminary study in the dog, pyroxasulfone is rapidly eliminated
with 76.9% of radioactivity excreted within 24 hours.  Excretion is
approximately equal in urine and feces. The terminal half life was 89.58
hr and 40.80 hr in blood and plasma, respectively.  The feces were found
to contain only unchanged pyroxasulfone while no parent molecule was
found in the urine.  At 120 hr after dosing, the levels of radioactivity
in the tissues were highest in the liver and blood.

	In a preliminary mouse metabolism study, 73% of the applied dose of
pyroxasulfone was excreted in urine within 24 hours of dosing.
Pyroxasulfone was rapidly absorbed and distributed through the tissues
of the mouse but by 24 hours after dosing, radioactivity concentrations
in the majority of tissues were indistinguishable from background
levels.

	Metabolism studies in livestock and poultry (Nature of Residue Studies
with Goat and Hen) with repeated dose established that pyroxasulfone was
rapidly metabolized and excreted and that there was minimal transmittal
of residues of pyroxasulfone and its metabolites to meat or milk.  For
goats fed 10 ppm of radiolabeled pyroxasulfone, the highest residues
(TRR) were seen in liver and kidney.  In the hen, fed 10 ppm, the
highest residue was seen in liver and muscle.

7.  Metabolite toxicology. Three plant metabolites and three impurities
were evaluated in acute oral toxicity studies.  All six test substances
evaluated showed LD50’s >2000 mg/kg similar to the parent,
pyroxasulfone.  Two metabolites were further assessed in a 14 day
toxicity study in rats.  The NOEL for each of the metabolites was > 1000
mg/kg.  The same three metabolites and impurities were evaluated in a
bacterial gene mutation test with and without activation.  All test
substances were non-genotoxic.

8.  Endocrine disruption. Pyroxasulfone does not belong to a class of
chemicals known or suspected of having adverse effects on the endocrine
system.  There is no evidence that pyroxasulfone has any effect on
endocrine function in developmental, reproduction or developmental
neurotoxicity studies.  Furthermore, histological investigation of
endocrine organs in chronic dog, rat and mouse studies did not indicate
that the endocrine system is targeted by pyroxasulfone.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. It can be concluded with reasonable certainty that
residues of pyroxasulfone in food will not result in unacceptable levels
of human health risk. Using proposed tolerances for corn, soybean and
wheat, both the acute and chronic dietary exposure MOEs for the overall
US population and 25 population subgroups are above the EPA level of
concern.

	i. Food. Acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted
using a Tier I approach.  This Tier I assessment incorporated tolerance
level residues and 100% crop-treated in the DEEMTM (Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model; Exponent, Inc., 2003) software system.  The acute
toxicological endpoint selected for assessment of risk following acute
dietary exposure was 300 mg/kg/day based on the Developmental
Neurotoxicity Study with a NOEL 300 mg/kg/day for motor activity and
brain morphology. The acute reference dose (aRfd) was determined to be 3
mg/kg/day assuming the aRdf is 1 percent of the NOEL. The chronic
toxicological endpoint selected for assessment of risk following chronic
dietary exposure was 2 mg/kg/day based on the one-year chronic feeding
dog study with a NOEL of 2 mg/kg/day. The chronic reference dose (cRfd)
was determined to be 0.02 mg/kg/day assuming the cRfd is 1 percent of
the NOEL. Using proposed tolerances for corn, soybean, wheat, and cotton
the acute and chronic dietary exposure Margin of Exposure (MOEs) for the
overall US population and 25 population subgroups are above the EPA
level of concern. It can be concluded with reasonable certainty that
residues of pyroxasulfone in food will not result in unacceptable levels
of human health risk.

	ii. Drinking water. Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure
Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Pesticide Root Zone Model
Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) of pyroxasulfone for acute exposure are estimated to be 17 ppb
for surface water and 210 ppb for ground water. EDWCs of pyroxasulfone
for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 3.2
ppb for surface water and 174 ppb for ground water. It can be concluded
with reasonable certainty that residues of pyroxasulfone in drinking
water will not result in unacceptable levels of human health risk.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Pyroxasulfone is not intended for any specific
use patterns that would result in residential exposures.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Pyroxasulfone represents a new class of pyrazole herbicides.  No other
products are known to have the same mode of action as pyroxasulfone.
Therefore, a cumulative assessment is not appropriate at this time.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. The toxicity database for pyroxasulfone is
complete. Based on the NOEL of 2 mg/kg/day from a 1-year toxicity study
in the dog, proposed uses represent 1 percent of the cRfD of 0.02
mg/kg/day.  Based on the NOEL of 300 mg/kg/day from a developmental
neurotoxicity study, the proposed uses represent 1 percent of the RfD of
3 mg/kg/day.  There is reasonable certainty that no harm to the U.S.
population will result from the proposed uses of pyroxasulfone.

	2. Infants and children. The toxicity database for pyroxasulfone is
complete.  The database includes acute, subchronic, chronic,
mutagenicity, genotoxicity, developmental, reproduction, neurotoxicity
and immunotoxicity studies on pyroxasulfone and acute mutagenicity and
genotoxicity studies on several metabolites.  The weight of evidence
indicates that infants and children are not expected to be more
sensitive to pyroxasulfone than are adults.  Consequently, EPA reduced
the FQPA Safety Factor from 10x to 1x.

F. International Tolerances.

	Tolerances are approved on wheat, barley and triticale in Australia.
Tolerances are simultaneously being sought in Canada at the same levels
and for the same crops as for the U.S.

 PAGE

 PAGE   9


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34085]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11316]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0227]

Safety Zones; Fireworks Displays in the Fifth Coast Guard
District--Philadelphia, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Delaware River, Philadelphia,
PA; Safety Zone for fireworks displays on three separate periods. The
safety zone will first be enforced from 9:15 p.m. through 10 p.m. on
June 24, 2023, and again, during those same hours, on June 25, 2023, or
on a rain date of June 26, 2023. The third period the safety zone will
be enforced will be from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2023, or on a
rain date of July 5, 2023. This is to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waterways during each of the three separate barge-based
fireworks displays. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth
Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in
Philadelphia, PA. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel
may enter, remain in, or transit through the regulated area, and anyone
in the vicinity must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander
or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

DATES: The regulation 33 CFR 165.506 for Philadelphia, PA, will be
enforced for the location identified in entry 10 of table 1 to
paragraph (h)(1) from 9:15 p.m. through 10 p.m. on June 24, 2023, and
for the same hours on June 25, 2023, or on a rain date of June 26,
2023, and from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2023, or on a rain date of
July 5, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, you may call or email Petty Officer Dylan
Caikowski, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management
Division, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry No. 10 for
three periods, for three separate barge-based fireworks displays. The
first two enforcement periods will be 9:15 p.m. through 10 p.m. on June
24, 2023, and 9:15 p.m. through 10 p.m. on June 25, 2023, or on a rain
date of June 26, 2023. The third enforcement period will be from 9 p.m.
to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2023, or on a rain date of July 5, 2023. This
action is necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of
the United States immediately prior to, during, and immediately after
fireworks displays. Our regulation for safety zones of fireworks
displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District, table 1 to paragraph
(h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10 specifies the location of the
regulated area as all waters of the Delaware River, adjacent to Penn's
Landing, Philadelphia, PA, within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks
barge position. The approximate position for the displays is latitude
39[deg]56'49'' N, longitude 075[deg]08'11'' W. During the enforcement
period, as reflected in Sec.  165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain
in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on-scene.
    In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register,
the Coast Guard will provide notification of this enforcement period
via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: May 22, 2023.
Jonathan D. Theel,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2023-11316 Filed 5-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P