[Federal Register: July 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 129)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32443-32448]
[DOCID:fr08jy09-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0478; FRL-8423-6]

Pyrimethanil; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation replaces existing tolerances for residues of
pyrimethanil on fruit, citrus, group 10 postharvest; and fruit, stone,
group 12, except cherry with tolerances for residues of pyrimethanil in
or on fruit, citrus, group 10, except lemon, postharvest; fruit, stone,
group 12; and lemon, preharvest and postharvest. Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective July 8, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 8, 2009,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0478. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Stanton, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations
at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite
at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the OPPTS Harmonized
Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines
at http://www.epa.gpo/opptsfrs/home/guidelin.htm.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those

objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this
regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part
178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0478 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before September 8, 2009.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0478, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 9, 2008 (73 FR 39289) (FRL-8371-2),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 8E7353)
by IR-4, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.518 be amended by establishing
tolerances for residues of the fungicide pyrimethanil, 4,6-dimethyl-N-
phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine, in or on fruit, citrus, (except lemon), group
10 (postharvest) at 10 parts per million (ppm); lemon at 11 ppm; and
fruit, stone, group 12 at 10 ppm; and removing existing tolerances for
residues of pyrimethanil on fruit, citrus, group 10 postharvest at 10
ppm; and fruit stone, group 12, except cherry at 3.0 ppm. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer CropScience, the
registrant, on behalf of IR-4, which is available to the public in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has made
minor changes to the citrus commodity definitions. The reason for these
changes is explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of pyrimethanil on fruit, citrus, group 10,
except lemon, postharvest at 11 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 10 ppm;
and lemon, preharvest and postharvest at 11 ppm. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with establishing tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Pyrimethanil is of low acute toxicity by the oral, inhalation, and
dermal routes of exposure. It is slightly irritating to the eyes and
non-irritating to the skin in rabbit studies. Pyrimethanil is not a
dermal sensitizer. Subchronic and chronic repeated oral toxicity
studies in rats, mice, and dogs primarily resulted in decreased body
weight and body-weight gains, often accompanied by decreased food
consumption. The major target organs in rats and mice were the liver
and thyroid. In subchronic studies in rats and mice, liver toxicity was
manifested as increased absolute and relative liver weights.
Histopathological changes in the liver were primarily associated with
increased evidence of hypertrophy in centrilobular hepatocytes. In a
subchronic toxicity study in mice, increases in absolute thyroid weight
were observed, associated with exfoliative necrosis and pigmentation of
follicular cells. In a subchronic toxicity study in rats, thyroid
effects were manifested as an increased incidence and severity of
follicular epithelial hypertrophy and follicular epithelial brown
pigment.
    EPA classified pyrimethanil as a Group C (possible human)
carcinogen, based on an increased incidence of thyroid follicular cell
tumors observed in the chronic/carcinogenicity study in rats. There was
no evidence of carcinogenicity in mice; however, the dosing in this
study was not considered to be adequate to assess the potential
carcinogenicity. Therefore, EPA is requesting a repeat of the mouse
carcinogenicity study. Based on the presence of thyroid tumors in rats,
EPA has determined that a margin of exposure (MOE) approach is
appropriate for quantification of risk. This determination is based on
evidence that pyrimethanil appears to induce thyroid tumors through a
disruption in the thyroid-pituitary status and thus may have a
threshold for tumor development. This decision was supported by the
weight of the evidence, considering the neoplastic, related
nonneoplastic and/or hormonal effects in the male rat thyroid and
liver. A point of departure (POD) of 17 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/
kg/day), based on the thyroid precursor lesions is used for
establishing the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) for
pyrimethanil. The cPAD will be protective of any potential cancer and
non-cancer effects from exposure to pyrimethanil. At this time, there
is less concern for the lack of a repeat mouse carcinogenicity study,
since no toxicologically significant effects were

noted up to the highest dose tested (HDT) (254 mg/kg/day) in the
existing mouse study, and the new study will be tested at higher doses.
Consequently EPA does not believe that the new study will yield a POD
lower than the current POD (17 mg/kg/day) used for risk assessment.
    Signs of potential neurotoxicity (ataxia, decreased motor activity,
decreased body temperature, decreased hind limb grip strength in males,
and dilated pupils in females) were observed at the HDT (1,000 mg/kg/
day) in the acute neurotoxicity study in rats. No signs of
neurotoxicity were evident at doses up to 392 mg/kg/day in the
subchronic neurotoxicity study in rats; and there was no evidence of
neuropathology in either the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity study or
in any of the subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in mice, rats and
dogs.
    There was no quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased
susceptibility of fetuses in the developmental toxicity studies in rats
and rabbits or of offspring in the 2-generation reproduction toxicity
study in rats. In the rat developmental toxicity study, maternal
effects (decreased body weight and weight gain) and fetal effects
(decreases in mean litter weight and mean fetal weight) were observed
at the same dose. Similarly, in the rabbit developmental toxicity
study, fetal effects (decreased body weight, weight gain, food
consumption, and production and size of fecal pellets; increase in
fetal runts; retarded ossification; 13 thoracic vertebrae and pairs of
ribs; and deaths) occurred at a dose that produced similar maternal
toxicity (decreased body weight, weight gain, food consumption, and
production and size of fecal pellets, and deaths). There were no
effects on fertility or reproduction in the 2-generation reproduction
study in rats. In this study, adverse effects (decreased body weight/
weight gain) also occurred at the same dose in parental animals and
pups.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by pyrimethanil as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in the document Pyrimethanil Human-Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Uses on Stone Fruits and Citrus Fruits, page 39
in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0478.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological POD is identified as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. The POD may be
defined as the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed
(the NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use
in risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the
lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the
LOAEL) or a benchmark dose (BMD) approach is sometimes used for risk
assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs) are used in conjunction
with the POD to take into account uncertainties inherent in the
extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the
variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well
as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic dietary
risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the pesticide
to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the POD by all applicable UFs.
Aggregate short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated
by comparing food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure
that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not
exceeded. This latter value is referred to as the level of concern
(LOC).
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for pyrimethanil used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the
document Pyrimethanil Human-Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on
Stone Fruits and Citrus Fruits, page 20 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2008-0478.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to pyrimethanil, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing pyrimethanil tolerances in 40
CFR 180.518. EPA assessed dietary exposures from pyrimethanil in food
as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. EPA identified such effects
for the general population (decreased motor activity, ataxia, decreased
body temperature, hind limb grip strength, and dilated pupils observed
in the acute neurotoxicity study) and for females 13 to 49 years old
(increase in fetuses with 13 thoracic vertebrae and 13 pairs of ribs
observed in the rabbit developmental toxicity study that are presumed
to occur after a single exposure). The aPAD for the general population
has been established at 1 mg/kg/day; whereas, the aPAD for females 13
to 49 years old is lower (0.45 mg/kg/day) due to the more sensitive
endpoint on which it is based.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1994-1996 and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by
Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that
pyrimethanil residues are present in all commodities at tolerance
levels and that 100% of all crops are treated.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that
pyrimethanil residues are present in all commodities at tolerance
levels and that 100% of all crops are treated.
    iii. Cancer. EPA classified pyrimethanil as a Group C (possible
human) carcinogen but determined that the chronic dietary risk
assessment based on the cPAD would be protective of any potential
cancer effects. Therefore, a separate exposure assessment to evaluate
cancer risk is unnecessary. The weight of the evidence supporting this
determination is discussed in unit III.A.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary
assessment for pyrimethanil. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were
assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for pyrimethanil in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of pyrimethanil. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models

used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://
www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
pyrimethanil for acute exposures are estimated to be 37.8 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 4.8 ppb for ground water. EDWCs of
pyrimethanil for chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 5.1 ppb for surface water and 4.8 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 37.8 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 5.1 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Pyrimethanil is not
registered for any specific use patterns that would result in
residential exposure.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found pyrimethanil to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and pyrimethanil does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
pyrimethanil does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(c) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) safety factor (SF). In applying this
provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a
different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA
support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicology database for pyrimethanil includes rat and rabbit
developmental toxicity studies and a 2-generation reproduction toxicity
study in rats. As discussed in unit III.A., there was no evidence of
increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibility of fetuses or
offspring following exposure to pyrimethanil in these studies.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for pyrimethanil is adequate to assess the
prenatal and postnatal toxicity of pyrimethanil. In accordance with 40
CFR part 158's toxicological data requirements, an immunotoxicity
testing study (OPPTS Guideline 870.7800) is required for pyrimethanil.
The evidence for immunotoxicity in the existing database is limited to
a slight decrease in thymus weight observed at the HDT (529 mg/kg/day)
in the subchronic study in rats. There were no corroborative
histopathological findings noted in the thymus in this study, and there
were no effects on the thymus in the chronic/carcinogenicity study in
rats at doses up to and including 221 mg/kg/day or in any other study
with pyrimethanil. Since the observed thymus weight increase is an
isolated finding, EPA does not believe that conducting immunotoxicity
testing will result in a POD lower than the POD already selected for
evaluating chronic exposures to pyrimethanil (17 mg/kg/day), and an
additional database UF is not needed to account for potential
immunotoxicity.
    ii. Although there were signs of potential neurotoxicity (ataxia,
decreased motor activity, decreased body temperature, decreased hind
limb grip strength in males, and dilated pupils in females) observed at
the HDT (1,000 mg/kg/day) in the acute neurotoxicity study, there were
no signs of neurotoxicity at doses up to 392 mg/kg/day in the
subchronic neurotoxicity study; and there was no evidence of
neuropathology in either the acute or subchronic neurotoxicity study or
in any of the subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in mice, rats and
dogs. Based on these findings, EPA has determined that there is no need
for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account
for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that pyrimethanil results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in offspring in the 2-generation reproduction
study. There are no residual uncertainties for prenatal and/or
postnatal toxicity.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to pyrimethanil in drinking water. Pyrimethanil is
not registered for any uses that would result in residential exposures
to the pesticide. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure
and risks posed by pyrimethanil.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE called for
by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for acute exposure, EPA performed two different acute risk assessments-
one focusing on females 13 to 49 years old and designed to protect
against prenatal effects and the other focusing on acute effects

relevant to all other population groups. For females 13 to 49 years
old, the acute dietary exposure to pyrimethanil from food and water
will occupy 13% of the aPAD addressing prenatal effects. As to acute
effects other than prenatal effects, the acute dietary exposure to
pyrimethanil from food and water will occupy 35% of the aPAD for
infants less than 1-year old, the population group with the highest
estimated acute dietary exposure to pyrimethanil.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
pyrimethanil from food and water will utilize 63% of the cPAD for
children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for pyrimethanil.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Pyrimethanil
is not registered for any use patterns that would result in residential
exposure. Therefore, the short-term aggregate risk is the sum of the
risk from exposure to pyrimethanil through food and water and will not
be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Pyrimethanil is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Therefore, the
intermediate-term aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from exposure
to pyrimethanil through food and water, which has already been
addressed, and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency has
determined that the chronic risk assessment based on the established
cPAD is protective of potential cancer effects from exposure to
pyrimethanil. Based on the results of the chronic risk assessment
discussed in Unit III.E.2. EPA concludes that pyrimethanil is not
expected to pose a cancer risk.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to pyrimethanil residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (High Performance Liquid
Chromatography (HPLC)) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    Codex maximum residue limits (MRLs) have been established for
pyrimethanil per se in/on plant commodities associated with this
petition, including citrus fruit at 7 ppm (postharvest); cherry
(postharvest), peach and nectarine at 4 ppm; apricot at 3 ppm; and plum
at 2 ppm. Due to differences in application rates and use patterns,
harmonization of U.S. tolerances with the lower Codex MRLs is not
possible at this time.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    IR-4 petitioned for tolerances for residues of pyrimethanil on
``fruit, citrus, (except lemon), group 10, (postharvest)'' and on
``lemon.'' EPA revised the group tolerance to read ``fruit, citrus,
group 10, except lemon, postharvest'' to agree with the accepted
nomenclature in the Agency's Food and Feed Vocabulary Database. The
tolerance for lemon was revised to read ``lemon, preharvest and
postharvest'' to comply with the regulation at 40 CFR 180.1(h), which
requires EPA to specify those tolerances intended to cover postharvest
use of a pesticide.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of pyrimethanil,
4,6-dimethyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine, in or on fruit, citrus, group
10, except lemon, postharvest at 10 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 10
ppm; and lemon, preharvest and postharvest at 11 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA
will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
this final rule in the Federal Register. This final rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 26, 2009.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. The table in paragraph (a)(1) of Sec.  180.518 is amended by
removing the commodities ``Fruit, citrus, group 10 postharvest'' and
``Fruit, stone, group 12, except cherry'' and alphabetically adding the
following commodities to read as follows:

Sec.  180.518  Pyrimethanil; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10, except lemon, postharvest.........           10
                                * * * * *
Fruit, stone, group 12.....................................           10
                                * * * * *
Lemon, preharvest and postharvest..........................           11
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. E9-15942 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 46996]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16991]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2016-78]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Homeland
Surveillance and Electronics LLC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before August 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-1533
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Ngo,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is published
pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 2016.
Dale Bouffiou,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-1533.
    Petitioner: Homeland Surveillance and Electronics LLC.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 45.27(a), 61.113(a)(b),
91.7(a),91.105, 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1),
91.409(a)(1)(2), 91.417(a)(b), 137.19(d); 137.19(e)(2)(ii), (iii), and
(v); 137.31(a)(b); 137.33(a); and 137.42.
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is requesting relief
in order to fly the HSE-UAV AG-V6A+ aircraft, which has a maximum
payload weight over 55 pounds, as well as the HSE-UAV VA Sprayer
series, including the HSE-UAV AG-V6A, the HSE-UAV AG-V6A+ V2, and the
HSE-UAV AG-8A for the purposes of product demonstration and
agricultural related services under Part 137.

[FR Doc. 2016-16991 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14061-14064]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06949]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0203]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Upper Potomac River, National Harbor,
MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish special local
regulations for certain waters of the Upper Potomac River. This action
is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable
waters located at National Harbor, MD, during a swim event on the
morning of June 23, 2019. This rule would prohibit persons and vessels
from entering the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or the Coast Guard Patrol
Commander. We invite your comments on this proposed rule.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 9, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0203 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
PATCOM Coast Guard Patrol Commander
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    Enviro-Sports Productions, Inc. of Stinson Beach, CA, notified the
Coast Guard that it will be conducting the Washington DC Sharkfest Swim
between 7:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on June 23, 2019. The inaugural open
water amateur swim race consists of approximately 250 adult and youth
athletes competing on a marked trapezoid course with three designated
swim distances, including 1 Km, 2 Km and 4 Km. The course starts and
finishes at the end of the commercial pier at National Harbor, MD.
Hazards from the swim competition include participants swimming within
and adjacent to the designated navigation channel and interfering with
vessels intending to operate within that channel, as well as swimming
within approaches to local public and private marinas and public boat
facilities. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital
Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the swim
would be a safety concern for anyone intending to participate in this
event or for vessels that operate within specified waters of the Upper
Potomac River.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants,
spectators and transiting vessels on certain waters of the Upper
Potomac River before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast
Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041,
which authorizes the Coast Guard to establish and define special local
regulations.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region proposes to establish
special local regulations from 7 a.m. through 11 a.m. on June 23, 2019.
There is no alternate date planned for this event. The regulated area
would cover all navigable waters of the Upper Potomac River, within an
area bounded by a line connecting the following points: From the
Rosilie Island shoreline at latitude 38[deg]47'30.30'' N, longitude
077[deg]01'26.70 W, thence west to latitude 38[deg]47'30.00''

N, longitude 077[deg]01'37.30'' W, thence south to latitude
38[deg]47'08.20'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'37.30'' W, thence east to
latitude 38[deg]47'09.00'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'09.20'' W, thence
southeast along the pier to latitude 38[deg]47'06.30'' N, longitude
077[deg]01'02.50 W, thence north along the shoreline and west along the
southern extent of the Woodrow Wilson (I-95/I-495) Memorial Bridge and
south and west along the shoreline to the point of origin, located at
National Harbor, MD. The regulated area is approximately 1,210 yards in
length and 740 yards in width.
    The proposed duration of the special local regulations and size of
the regulated area are intended to ensure the safety of life on these
navigable waters before, during, and after the open water swim,
scheduled from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on June 23, 2019. The COTP and
the Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) would have authority to
forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including
event participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by
an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area would be
required to immediately comply with the directions given by the COTP or
PATCOM. If a person or vessel fails to follow such directions, the
Coast Guard may expel them from the area, issue them a citation for
failure to comply, or both.
    Except for Washington DC Sharkfest Swim participants and vessels
already at berth, a vessel or person would be required to get
permission from the COTP or PATCOM before entering the regulated area.
Vessel operators can request permission to enter and transit through
the regulated area by contacting the PATCOM on VHF-FM channel 16.
Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once
the PATCOM deems it safe to do so. A person or vessel not registered
with the event sponsor as a participant or assigned as official patrols
would be considered a spectator. Official Patrols are any vessel
assigned or approved by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-
National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    If permission is granted by the COTP or PATCOM, a person or vessel
would be allowed to enter the regulated area or pass directly through
the regulated area as instructed. Vessels would be required to operate
at a safe speed that minimizes wake while within the regulated area.
Official patrol vessels will direct spectator vessels while within the
regulated area. Vessels would be prohibited from loitering within the
navigable channel. Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels
would be allowed to enter the race area.
    The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this
document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, time of day
and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small
designated area of the Upper Potomac River for 4 hours. The Coast Guard
would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16
about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel
traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once the
PATCOM deems it safe to do so.

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
proposed rule would 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
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    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 proposed 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
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary
determination 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 proposed rule involves implementation of regulations
within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the
navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the
safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area
lasting for four hours. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1
of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. We seek any comments
or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. 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.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.501T05-0203 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.501T05-0203   Special Local Regulation; Upper Potomac River,
National Harbor, MD.

    (a) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region means
the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region
or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
authorized by the COTP to act on his behalf.
    Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) means a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region.
    Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast
Guard ensign.
    Participant means a person or vessel registered with the event
sponsor as participating in the Washington DC Sharkfest Swim or
otherwise designated by the event sponsor as having a function tied to
the event.
    Spectator means a person or vessel not registered with the event
sponsor as participants or assigned as official patrols.
    (b) Location. The following location is a regulated area. All
navigable waters of the Upper Potomac River, within an area bounded by
a line connecting the following points: From the Rosilie Island
shoreline at latitude 38[deg]47'30.30'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'26.70
W, thence west to latitude 38[deg]47'30.00'' N, longitude
077[deg]01'37.30'' W, thence south to latitude 38[deg]47'08.20'' N,
longitude 077[deg]01'37.30'' W, thence east to latitude
38[deg]47'09.00'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'09.20'' W, thence southeast
along the pier to latitude 38[deg]47'06.30'' N, longitude
077[deg]01'02.50'' W, thence north along the shoreline and west along
the southern extent of the Woodrow Wilson (I-95/I-495) Memorial Bridge
and south and west along the shoreline to the point of origin, located
at National Harbor, MD. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.
    (c) Special local regulations: (1) The COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region or PATCOM may forbid and control the movement of all
vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated
area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person
in the regulated area shall immediately comply with the directions
given by the patrol. Failure to do so may result in the Coast Guard
expelling the person or vessel from the area, issuing a citation for
failure to comply, or both. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region
or PATCOM may terminate the event, or a participant's operations at any
time the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or PATCOM believes it
necessary to do so for the protection of life or property.
    (2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, a person
or vessel within the regulated area at the start of enforcement of this
section must immediately depart the regulated area.
    (3) A spectator must contact the PATCOM to request permission to
either enter or pass through the regulated area. The PATCOM, and
official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area, can be contacted
on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A
(157.1

MHz). If permission is granted, the spectator must pass directly
through the regulated area as instructed by PATCOM. A vessel within the
regulated area must operate at safe speed that minimizes wake. A
spectator vessel must not loiter within the navigable channel while
within the regulated area.
    (4) A person or vessel that desires to transit, moor, or anchor
within the regulated area must obtain authorization from the COTP
Maryland-National Capital Region or PATCOM. A person or vessel seeking
such permission can contact the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region
at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM
channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or the PATCOM on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM
channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
    (5) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information
broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event date
and times.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The Coast Guard may be assisted with
marine event patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other
Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 a.m.
to 11 a.m. on June 23, 2019.

    Dated: April 2, 2019.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2019-06949 Filed 4-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2857-2858]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00819]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2343-086]

PE Hydro Generation, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and Establishing Procedural Schedule for
Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2343-086.
    c. Date Filed: December 30, 2015.
    d. Applicant: PE Hydro Generation, LLC (PE Hydro).
    e. Name of Project: Millville Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The existing project is located on the Shenandoah
River, near the town of Harpers Ferry in Jefferson County, West
Virginia. No federal lands are occupied by project works or located
within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Juan Kimble, President, PE Hydro Generation,
LLC, 5425 Wisconsin Avenue, 6th Floor, Chevy Chase, MD 20815;
Telephone--(301) 718-4496.
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis (EA) at
this time.
    k. Project Description: The Millville project consists of: (1) A
14.0-foot-high concrete and stone dam consisting of three sections: a
36-foot-long non-overflow abutment on the east bank; an 813-foot long,
non-gated spillway section; and a 122-foot-long intake structure,
equipped with four vertical lift gates and one canal gate, and
extending to the west riverbank; (2) a 100 acre reservoir with gross
storage capacity of 900 acre-feet at elevation 324.0 mean sea level;
(3) a 1,600-foot-long, 30-foot-wide, 12-foot-high masonry and concrete
sided headrace canal; (4) a 125-foot-long, 40-foot-wide brick
powerhouse containing 3 turbine-generating units with a combined
capacity of 2.84 megawatts; (5) a 550-foot-long tailrace, excavated in
bedrock and returning flow to the river channel; and (6) a 1,006-foot-
long, 2.4 kilovolt (kV) transmission line to a transformer, with a 794-
foot-long, 34.5 kV transmission line to the interconnection with the
local grid.
    PE Hydro operates the project in a run-of-river mode, with a
minimum flow of 200 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less. Under an
agreement with the US Fish and Wildlife Service the licensee shuts down
Project nightly from September 15 to December 15 in an effort to reduce
entrainment of downstream-migrating American eels. The project
generates an annual average of 10,159.431 MWh.
    l. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection
and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    m. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule will be made as appropriate.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Acceptance/Notice of Ready for    February 2016.
 Environmental Analysis.
Filing of recommendations, preliminary      April 2016.
 terms and conditions, and fishway
 prescriptions.
Commission issues EA......................  August 2016.
Comments on EA............................  September 2016.
Modified Terms and Conditions.............  November 2016.
Commission Issues Final EA, if necessary..  February 2017.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: January 12, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00819 Filed 1-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61795-61797]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24970]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67987; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2012-110]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To
Amend the Fees Charged for Routing Orders to the New York Stock
Exchange LLC

October 4, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on September 28, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (``Fee Schedule'') to modify the
fees that it charges for routing orders to the New York Stock Exchange
LLC (``NYSE''). The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to modify the fees
that it charges for routing orders to the NYSE. The Exchange proposes
to implement the fee changes on October 1, 2012.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange filed a separate fee filing, which the Exchange
proposes to implement on October 1, 2012. See SR-NYSEArca-2012-104
(Sept. 24, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NYSE has proposed modifications to its transaction fee
structures, including changes to the rates for taking liquidity, to
become effective on October 1, 2012.\5\ The Exchange's current fees for
routing orders in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more to
the NYSE are closely related to the NYSE's fees for taking liquidity in
such securities, and the Exchange is proposing an adjustment to its
routing fees to maintain the existing relationship to the new fees in
place at the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See SR-NYSE-2012-50 (Sept. 26, 2012) (the ``NYSE Fee
Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the NYSE charges a transaction fee for certain
transactions in securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more
based on the characteristics of the transaction, including order
type.\6\ Among other changes, the NYSE Fee Filing proposed to increase
the charge for transactions that do not have a specified per share
charge based on their characteristics (``all other'' transactions). The
NYSE Fee Filing proposed to increase the per share charge for all other
non-floor broker transactions (i.e., when taking liquidity from the
Exchange) from $0.0023 to $0.0025 per transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, the NYSE charges $0.0005 per share (subject to
a monthly cap) for at the opening or at the opening only orders,
$0.0055 per share per transaction for all market at-the-close
(``MOC'') and limit at-the-close (``LOC'') orders from any member
organization executing an average daily volume of MOC/LOC activity
on the NYSE in that month of at least 14 million shares, and $0.0095
per share per transaction for all other MOC and LOC orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, for NYSE Arca Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Step Up Tier 1,
and Step Up Tier 2 customers, the fee for routing orders in Tape A
securities to the NYSE outside the book is equal to the NYSE fee of
$0.0023 per share for all other non-floor broker transactions in
securities with a per share price of $1.00 or more, and the fee for
routing such orders to the NYSE for non-tier (i.e., Basic Rate)
customers is $0.0025 per share.\7\ Consequently, the Exchange is
proposing to increase each of those fees by $0.0002 to $0.0025 per
share and $0.0027 per share, respectively, consistent with the $0.0002
increase in the NYSE fee for all other non-floor broker transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The other tiers in the Fee Schedule (e.g., the Tape B and C
Step Up Tiers, Investor Tiers, Cross-Asset Tier and Retail Order
Tier) do not specify a fee for routing orders in Tape A securities
to the NYSE outside the book. However, such tiers provide that if a
fee (or credit) is not included in the tier, the relevant tiered or
Basic Rate applies based on a firm's qualifying levels. Accordingly,
for orders in Tape A securities routed to the NYSE outside the book,
ETP Holders and Market Makers that qualify for another tier would
default to the Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Step Up Tier 1, Step Up Tier
2 or Basic Rate that applied to them based on their qualifying
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange currently charges $0.0021 per share for
Primary Sweep Orders \8\ in Tape A securities that are routed outside
the book to the NYSE that remove liquidity from the NYSE.\9\ In order
to maintain the existing relationship to the other Exchange routing
fees that are being adjusted upward, the Exchange is also proposing to
increase this fee by $0.0002, to $0.0023 per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A Primary Sweep Order is a Primary Only (``PO'') Order
(i.e., a market or limit order that is to be routed to the primary
market) that first sweeps the NYSE Arca book. See NYSE Arca Equities
Rules 7.31(x) and (kk).
    \9\ This charge is included in the provisions for Tier 1, Tier
2, and the Basic Rate. The other tiers in the Fee Schedule do not
specify a fee for Primary Sweep Orders in Tape A securities that are
routed outside the book to the NYSE that remove liquidity from the
NYSE. Accordingly, for such orders ETP Holders and Market Makers
that qualify for another tier would default to the Tier 1, Tier 2 or
Basic Rate that applied to them based on their qualifying levels.
See note 7, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, for Primary Only Plus (``PO+'') orders,\10\ the current
Exchange fee for orders routed to the NYSE that remove liquidity from
the NYSE is $0.0023 per share, which is equal to the current NYSE fee
for all other non-floor broker transactions in securities with a per
share price of $1.00 or more.\11\ Consequently, the Exchange is
proposing to increase its fees for routing PO+ orders to the NYSE that
remove liquidity by the same amount ($0.0002) as the increase in the
corresponding NYSE fees. The proposed new fee for PO+ orders routed to
the NYSE that remove liquidity is $0.0025 per share. This change would
maintain the current relationship with the NYSE rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A PO+ Order is a PO Order that is entered for participation
in the primary market, other than for participation in the primary
market opening or primary market re-opening. See NYSE Arca Equities
Rule 7.31(x)(3).
    \11\ This charge is included in the provisions for Tier 1, Tier
2, and the Basic Rate. The other tiers in the Fee Schedule do not
specify a fee for PO+ orders routed outside the book to the NYSE
that remove liquidity. Accordingly, for such orders ETP Holders and
Market Makers that qualify for another tier would default to the
Tier 1, Tier 2 or Basic Rate that applied to them based on their
qualifying levels. See note 7, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\13\ in particular, because it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does
not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are reasonable
because the Exchange's fees for routing orders to the NYSE are closely
related to the NYSE's fees for its members for taking liquidity, and
the fee increases are consistent with the changes proposed by the NYSE
to increase its fees for taking liquidity. The proposed changes will
result in maintaining the existing relationship between the two sets of
fees. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it
would result in an increase in the per share fee for orders, Primary
Sweep Orders, and PO+ Orders routed to the NYSE, thereby aligning the
rate that the

Exchange charges to ETP Holders with the rate that the Exchange is
charged by the NYSE. Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing this
increase so that the rate it charges to ETP Holders reflects the rate
that the Exchange is charged by the NYSE. In addition, the proposed
changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the fee
increases apply uniformly across pricing tiers and all similarly
situated ETP Holders would be subject to the same fee structure.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \14\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \15\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.

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-NYSEArca-2012-110 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-110. 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 Web site (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 Web site 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-110 and should
be submitted on or before November 1, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24970 Filed 10-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 48119-48120]
[DOCID:fr21se09-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2009-0001-N-23]

Notice and Request for Comments

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Requirement (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the nature of the information collection and its expected
burden. The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on July 6, 2009 (74 FR 32029).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 21, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety,
Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., 3rd Floor, Mail Stop 25,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>), or Ms. Nakia Jackson,
Office of Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., 3rd Floor, Mail Stop 35,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). (These telephone
numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law No. 104-13, Section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as
revised at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5
CFR Part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking
public comment on information collection activities before OMB may
approve paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5,
1320.8(d)(1), 1320.12. On July 6, 2009, FRA published a 60-day notice
in the Federal Register soliciting comment on this ICR that the agency
was seeking OMB approval. 74 FR 32029. FRA received one comment--a
letter--in response to this notice.
    The letter came from Mr. Freddie Simpson, President of the
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (BMWED). BMWED is a rail labor
organization representing approximately 36,000 railroad workers who
build, maintain, repair and inspect tracks, bridges, and related
railroad infrastructure throughout North America. In his remarks, Mr.
Simpson stated the following:

    In response to the Proposed Agency Information Collection
Activities; Comment Request published in the Federal Register on
July 6, 2009, (Volume 74, Number 127, pages 32029-32030) BMWED
supports the proposed study and related information collection
activities. As such, BMWED respectfully requests OMB approval.

    BMWED offers the following comments in support:

     The proposed collection of information is necessary for
the Department to fulfill its Congressional mandate under the RSIA
to conduct a track inspection time study. This information is
necessary to evaluate the conditions under which visual track
inspections are conducted and to develop a report to the Congress
responsive to Section 403 of the RSIA.
     The collected information will have practical utility
to the Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) in their analysis of track inspection issues
within the industry.
     The Department's estimates of burden hours and costs
are reasonable.
     The methodology proposed for this information
collection activity is suitable and appropriate for the study and
the respondent population and will facilitate the collection of data
with high utility.
     The proposed information collection activity has been
designed to be minimally burdensome on respondents and the proposed
information collection activity is of limited duration.
    Visual track inspections conducted under 49 CFR Parts 213.233,
213.235 and 213.365 play a vital and integral role in maintaining
track structural integrity and the safety of railroad operations.
BMWED believes that the ``Track Transportation [track inspection]
Time Study, OMB Control Number: 2130-NEW, Docket No. FRA-2009-0001-
N-16'' is necessary to allow the Secretary to fulfill the
Congressional mandate of Section 403 of the RSIA to: (1) determine
whether the required intervals of track inspections for each class
of track should be amended; (2) determine whether track remedial
action requirements should be amended; (3) determine whether
different track inspection and repair priorities or methods should
be required; and (4) determine whether the speed at which railroad
track inspection vehicles operate and the scope of the territory
they generally cover allow for proper inspection of the track and
whether such speed and appropriate scope should be regulated by the
Secretary.

FRA received no other comments in response to this notice. Accordingly,
DOT announces that these information collection activities have been
evaluated and certified under 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and forwarded to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.10(a).
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507 (b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    The summary below describes the nature of the information
collection requirement (ICR) and the expected burden for the ICR being
submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
    Title: Track Transportation Time Study.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-New.
    Type of Request: Regular Approval of a New Collection of
Information.
    Affected Public: Track Inspectors/Track Inspector Supervisors/
Division and Chief Engineers
    Abstract: The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-432)
calls for a track inspection time study to be performed by FRA. The
information required to develop the report will be at least partially
obtained through a series of information gathering surveys which are
focused on various aspects of track inspection. Each survey will be
customized for a particular segment of the workforce and will include
track inspectors, track supervisors or roadmasters, middle management
(division engineers), and senior management (chief engineers).

    The purpose of the proposed study is to address four issues raised
in the Rail Safety Improvement Act: (1.) Determine whether the required
intervals of track inspections for each class of track should be
amended; (2.) Determine whether track remedial action requirements
should be amended; (3.) Determine whether different track inspection
and repair priorities or methods should be required; and (4.) Determine
whether the speed at which railroad track inspection vehicles operate
and the scope of the territory they generally cover allow for proper
inspection of the track and whether such speed and appropriate scope
should be regulated by the Secretary.
    Form Number(s): FRA F 6180.136; FRA F 6180.137.
    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 133 hours.
    Addressee: Send comments regarding this information collection to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to
OMB at the following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

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

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 14, 2009.
Kimberly Orben,
Director, Office of Financial Management, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-22583 Filed 9-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P